A Comparison of Two Model Transformation Frameworks for Multiple-viewed Software Requirements Acquisition

Abstract

Abstract-Multiple-viewed requirements modeling allows modelers to elicit the requirements of a system from different viewpoints. Requirements are then organized and encoded in different analysis models which collaboratively form an overall understanding of the system. Model transformations among those analysis models at this stage can be used as a way to acquire requirements knowledge, thus making the set of models complete and consistent. Two frameworks are found to support such requirements acquisition: the pairwise framework and the common representation framework. In practical applications, various factors need to be considered when requirements modelers choose between the two frameworks in order to acquire requirements by analysis model transformations. In this paper, we propose a set of criteria which provides a theoretical basis for comparing the two frameworks for their effectiveness of generating models and acquiring requirements in the context of multiple-viewed requirements modeling. The results of the comparison is then presented.

A Knowledge Engineering Approach to UML Modeling (S)

“…The application of ontology in Requirements Engineering to support elicitation, analysis, specification, validation and management of requirements is one of the solutions to improve the quality of requirements [2]. To be more specific, knowledge representations based on formal logic is considered as an effective way to represent and manage requirements knowledge [3] [7] [10]. In this paper, we are combining the popularity of the semi-formal UML notations and the Description Logic based OWL (Web Ontology Language), so that UML diagrams' semantics can be represented in OWL.…”