Advertisement

Improving Traceability Links Recovery in Process Models Through an Ontological Expansion of Requirements

  • Raúl LapeñaEmail author
  • Francisca Pérez
  • Carlos Cetina
  • Óscar Pastor
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11483)

Abstract

Often, when requirements are written, parts of the domain knowledge are assumed by the domain experts and not formalized in writing, but nevertheless used to build software artifacts. This issue, known as tacit knowledge, affects the performance of Traceability Links Recovery. Through this work we propose LORE, a novel approach that uses Natural Language Processing techniques along with an Ontological Requirements Expansion process to minimize the impact of tacit knowledge on TLR over process models. We evaluated our approach through a real-world industrial case study, comparing its outcomes against those of a baseline. Results show that our approach retrieves improved results for all the measured performance indicators. We studied why this is the case, and identified some issues that affect LORE, leaving room for improvement opportunities. We make an open-source implementation of LORE publicly available in order to facilitate its adoption in future studies.

Keywords

Traceability Links Recovery Business Process Models Requirements Engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and ERDF funds under the project Model-Driven Variability Extraction for Software Product Lines Adoption (TIN2015-64397-R). We also thank the ITEA3 15010 REVaMP2 Project.

References

  1. 1.
    Abeles, P.: Efficient Java Matrix Library (2017). http://ejml.org/. Accessed 9 Nov 2017
  2. 2.
    Apache: OpenNLP Toolkit for the Processing of Natural Language Text (2017). https://opennlp.apache.org/. Accessed 12 Nov 2017
  3. 3.
    Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L., Zimmer, F.: Extracting domain models from natural-language requirements: approach and industrial evaluation. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 250–260. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Goknil, A., Briand, L.C., Zimmer, F.: Change impact analysis for natural language requirements: an NLP approach. In: IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capobianco, G., De Lucia, A., Oliveto, R., Panichella, A., Panichella, S.: On the role of the nouns in IR-based traceability recovery. In: IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC 2009, pp. 148–157. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carpineto, C., Romano, G.: A survey of automatic query expansion in information retrieval. ACM Comput. Surv. 44, 1:1–1:50 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duan, C., Cleland-Huang, J.: Clustering support for automated tracing. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eder, S., Femmer, H., Hauptmann, B., Junker, M.: Configuring latent semantic indexing for requirements tracing. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Testing (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falessi, D., Cantone, G., Canfora, G.: Empirical principles and an industrial case study in retrieving equivalent requirements via natural language processing techniques. Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(1), 18–44 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghazarian, A.: A research agenda for software reliability. IEEE Reliability Society 2009 Annual Technology Report (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gotel, O.C., Finkelstein, C.: An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 94–101. IEEE (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landauer, T.K., Foltz, P.W., Laham, D.: An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process. 25(2–3), 259–284 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Lucia, A., et al.: Enhancing an artefact management system with traceability recovery features. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 306–315. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marcus, A., Sergeyev, A., Rajlich, V., Maletic, J.: An information retrieval approach to concept location in source code. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 214–223 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1109/WCRE.2004.10
  15. 15.
    Meziane, F., Athanasakis, N., Ananiadou, S.: Generating natural language specifications from UML class diagrams. Requirements Eng. 13(1), 1–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rempel, P., Mäder, P.: Preventing defects: the impact of requirements traceability completeness on software quality. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 43(8), 777–797 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salman, H.E., Seriai, A., Dony, C.: Feature location in a collection of product variants: combining information retrieval and hierarchical clustering. In: The 26th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 426–430 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salton, G.: The SMART Retrieval System - Experiments in Automatic Document Processing. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1971)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salton, G., McGill, M.J.: Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sisman, B., Kak, A.C.: Assisting code search with automatic query reformulation for bug localization. In: Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 309–318 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Software traceability: a roadmap. Handb. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 3, 395–428 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stone, A., Sawyer, P.: Using pre-requirements tracing to investigate requirements based on tacit knowledge. In: ICSOFT (1), pp. 139–144 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sultanov, H., Hayes, J.H.: Application of swarm techniques to requirements engineering: requirements tracing. In: 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sundaram, S.K., Hayes, J.H., Dekhtyar, A., Holbrook, E.A.: Assessing traceability of software engineering artifacts. Requirements Eng. 15(3), 313–335 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watkins, R., Neal, M.: Why and how of requirements tracing. IEEE Softw. 11(4), 104–106 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Winkler, S., Pilgrim, J.: A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Softw. Syst. Model. (SoSyM) 9(4), 529–565 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raúl Lapeña
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francisca Pérez
    • 1
  • Carlos Cetina
    • 1
  • Óscar Pastor
    • 2
  1. 1.SVIT Research GroupUniversidad San JorgeZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.Centro de Investigación en Métodos de Producción de SoftwareUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations