Using Semantic Web to Establish Traceability Links Between Heterogeneous Artifacts

  • Nasser MustafaEmail author
  • Yvan LabicheEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 868)


Semantic Web enables the users of the World Wide Web (WWW) to create non-traditional data repositories. The data can be linked in a flat hierarchy structure that allows the extensibility of data without the need for changing the structure itself. The linked data along with other rules can be used to infer or extract other data. We propose a semantic web technique that employs the Resource Description Framework (RDF) for building a trace links taxonomy. The taxonomy can be utilized to link heterogeneous artifacts coming from different domains of expertise. This technique allows users to refer to any trace link type in the taxonomy using a unique Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). The taxonomy can also be integrated to a traceability framework using the Open Service for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) in order to accommodate the traceability of heterogeneous artifacts. We present validation criteria for validating the taxonomy requirements and validate the solution through a set of test cases. A simple case study is used in order to provide meaningful results.


Traceability Trace links Semantic web Taxonomy Linked data Resource description factor Open Service for Lifecycle Collaboration 


  1. 1.
    Mustafa, N., Labiche, Y.: Employing linked in building a trace links taxonomy. In: International Conference of Software Technologies, Spain (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramesh, B., Jarke, M.: Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27(1), 58–93 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: 1st International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Utrecht, The Netherlands (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paige, F., et al.: Building model-driven engineering traceability classifications. In: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture - Traceability Workshop, Berlin, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mason, P., et al.: Meta-modelling approach to traceability for avionics: a framework for managing the engineering of computer based aerospace systems. In: 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems. IEEE, Huntsville (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spanoudakis, G., et al.: Rule-based generation of requirements traceability relations. Syst. Softw. 72(2), 105–127 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Software traceability: a road map. In: Chang, S.K. (ed.) Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 395–428 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu, P., Ramesh, B.: Supporting workflow management systems with traceability. In: 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Hawaii (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pohl, K.: PRO-ART: enabling requirements pre-traceability. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexander, I.: Semi automatic tracing of requirement versions to use cases – experience and challenges. In: 2nd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riebisch, M., Philippow, I.: Evolution of product lines using traceability. In: Workshop on Engineering Complex Object-Oriented Systems for Evolution, Florida (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML) (2015). Accessed 10 May 2015
  13. 13.
    OMG, O.M.G.: OMG systems modeling language (2014). Accessed 10 June 2014
  14. 14.
    Maletic, J.I., et al.: Using a hypertext model for traceability link conformance analysis. In: 2nd International Workshop on Traceability for Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinheiro, F.A.C., Goguen, J.A.: An object-oriented tool for tracing requirements. IEEE Softw. 13(2), 52–64 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: Contribution structures. In: 2nd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mustafa, N., Labiche, Y.: The need for traceability in heterogeneous systems: a systematic literature review. In: IEEE International Computers, Software and Applications Conference, Italy (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Constantopoulos, P.J.M., Mylopoulos, Y., Vassiliou, Y.: The software information base: a server for reuse. Int. J. Very Large Data Bases 4(1), 1–43 (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, in EBSE Technical report (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Letelier, P.: A framework for requirements traceability in UML-based projects. In: 1st International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mustafa, N., Labiche, Y.: Modeling traceabibility for heterogeneous systems. In: 10th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications. SCITEPRESS, Colmar (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    IEEE: IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. In: IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, I.S. board Editor, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cleland-Huang, J., Gotel, O., Zisman, A. (eds.): Software and Systems Traceability. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gotel, O., et al.: Traceability fundamentals. In: Cleland-Huang, J., Gotel, O., Zisman, A. (eds.) Software and Systems Traceability, pp. 3–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramesh, B., Edwards, M.: Issues in the development of a requirements traceability model. In: IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aizenbud-Reshef, N., et al.: Model traceability. IBM Syst. J. Model Driven Softw. Develop. 45(3), 515–526 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mustafa, N., Labiche, Y.: Toward traceability modeling for the engineering of heterogeneous systems. In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering and Software Development, Angers, Loire Valley, France (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dick, J.: Rich traceability. In: 1st International Workshop on Traceability for Emerging forms of Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohan, K., Ramesh, B.: Managing variability with traceability in product and service families. In: 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Hawaii (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grammel, B.: Automatic generation of trace links in model-driven software development. Fakultät Informatik, Technische Universität Dresden (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Olsen, G.K., Oldevik, J.: Scenarios of traceability in model to text transformations. In: Akehurst, D.H., Vogel, R., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4530, pp. 144–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paige, R.F., et al.: Rigorous identification and encoding of trace-links in model-driven engineering. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(4), 469–487 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lucia, A.D., Fasano, F., Oliveto, R.: Recovering traceability links in software artifact management systems using information retrieval methods. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 16(4), 13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rummler, A., Grammel, B., Pohl, C.: Improving traceability in model-driven development of business applications. In: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture - Traceability Workshop (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Knethen, A.: Automatic change support based on a trace model. In: 1st International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, Edinburgh (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Filho, G.C., Zisman, A., Spanoudakis, G.: Traceability approach for i* and UML models. In: International Workshop on Software Engineering for Large-Scale Multi-Agent Systems, Portland (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    LindVall, M., Sandahl, K.: Practical implications of traceability. Softw. Pract. Exp. 26(10), 1161–1180 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    W3C: Resource Description Framework (2016). Accessed 15 Oct 2016
  39. 39.
    Kozlenkov, A., Zisman, A.: Are their design specifications consistent with our requirements? In: IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    OMG, O.M.G.: Unified Modeling Language (2014). Accessed 10 July 2014
  41. 41.
    OMG, O.M.G.: Systems Modeling Language (2014). Accessed 10 June 2014
  42. 42.
    Roques, P.: Modeling requirements with SysML. In: Requirement Engineering Magazine. IREB (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller, L., Brickley, D.: FOAF (2016). Accessed 3 Nov 2016
  44. 44.
    Dumbill, E.: Description of a Project (2016). Accessed 3 Nov 2016
  45. 45.
    Cognitum: Fluent Editor 2015 (2017). Accessed 2 Feb 2017
  46. 46.
    R Foundation: The R project for statistical computing (2017). Accessed 2 Feb 2017
  47. 47.
    Bretschneider, M., et al.: Model-based safety analysis of a flap control system. Int. Counc. Syst. Eng. 14(1), 246–256 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NottinghamNingboChina
  2. 2.Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations