Deriving static and dynamic concepts from software requirements using sophisticated tagging

Fliedl, Günther; Kop, Christian; Mayr, Heinrich C.; Salbrechter, Alexander; Vöhringer, Jürgen; Weber, Georg F.; Winkler, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.datak.2006.06.012

Cited by 35 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been various approaches by different groups. A group from Klagenfurt has been working on parsing German text into a generic meta-model, and semi-automatically generating UML activity diagrams from its content [69,70]. A fully automated approach is presented in Yue et al [71], but it assumes the text to follow the conventions of use-case descriptions.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models

Leopold

Smirnov

Mendling

2012

Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large corporations increasingly utilize business process models for documenting and redesigning their operations. The extent of such modeling initiatives with several hundred models and dozens of often hardly trained modelers calls for automated quality assurance. While formal properties of control flow can easily be checked by existing tools, there is a notable gap for checking the quality of the textual content of models, in particular, its activity labels. In this paper, we address the problem of activity label quality in business process models. We designed a technique for the recognition of labeling styles, and the automatic refactoring of labels with quality issues. More specifically, we developed a parsing algorithm that is able to deal with the shortness of activity labels, which integrates natural language tools like WordNet and the Stanford Parser. Using three business process model collections from practice with differing labeling style distributions, we demonstrate the applicability of our technique. In comparison to a straightforward application of standard natural language tools, our technique provides much more stable results. As an outcome, the technique shifts the boundary of process model quality issues that can be checked automatically from syntactic to semantic aspects.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models

Leopold

Smirnov

Mendling

2012

Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After filtering the results (361 papers) of the electronic search by applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, we identified 11 papers [6,14,19,21,24,25,36,40,48,51,54] to include. The manual search of journals and conference proceedings yielded an additional six primary studies (i.e., [10,17,18,20,47,49]), and two of them (i.e., [18,49]) are more recent discussions and therefore replaced two of the 11 papers identified from the electronic search (i.e., [19,48]). We scanned the references and the authors' publication lists of all the 15 primary studies (11 ?…”

Section: Statistics From Included Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among all these 19 primary studies (15 ? 5-1), three groups of papers (i.e., [34,52], [18,35,44], and [45,49]) describe three individual approaches. The papers in each group together describe a single approach.…”

Section: Statistics From Included Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine approaches can generate behavioral features of a system (e.g., sequence diagrams, state machines, and/or activity diagrams). Three approaches ( [24], [18,35,44] and [10]) (highlighted) conforming to configuration 1 are capable of generating analysis models including both structural and behavioral aspects of a system, which are characterized as complete according to our evaluation criteria (Sect. 4.2); two approaches ( [6] and [25]) (highlighted) conforming to configuration 2 and 4, respectively, can also generate complete analysis models.…”

Section: Analysis Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The generated domain models of the approach proposed in [24], conforming to configuration 1, contain only objects and links, rather than commonly used class diagram representations; the generated hybrid activity diagrams (i.e., UML activity diagrams also including the concepts of actors, business rules, and messages) are at a very high level of abstraction, and are independently generated from the generated domain models (i.e., there might be inconsistencies between the two diagrams). The NIBA project [18,35,44], also conforming to configuration 1, can derive class, activity, and state machine diagrams from requirements. User intervention is required in many places, especially during the transformation from requirements to intermediate models.…”

Section: Analysis Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of transformation approaches between user requirements and analysis models

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model transformation is one of the basic principles of Model Driven Architecture. To build a software system, a sequence of transformations is performed, starting from requirements and ending with implementation. However, requirements are mostly in the form of text, but not a model that can be easily understood by computers; therefore, automated transformations from requirements to analysis models are not easy to achieve. The overall objective of this systematic review is to examine existing literature works that transform textual requirements into analysis models, highlight open issues, and provide suggestions on potential directions of future research. The systematic review led to the analysis of 20 primary studies (16 approaches) obtained after a carefully designed procedure for selecting papers published in journals and conferences from 1996 to 2008 and Software Engineering textbooks. A conceptual framework is designed to provide common concepts and terminology and to define a unified transformation process. This facilitates the comparison and evaluation of the reviewed papers.One of the basic principles of Model Driven Architecture (MDA) [29] is model transformation. To build a software system, a series of transformations is performed: transformation from requirements to Platform Independent Model (PIM) (the analysis model), transformation from PIM to Platform Specific Model (PSM) (the design model), and transformation from PSM to code. However, the transformation from requirements to an analysis model is not part of the MDA lifecycle, which starts from an analysis model and ends with deployed code [29]. The reason of this exclusion is perhaps that requirements are mostly in a textual form, which is not a model formal enough to be understood by computers. As a result, requirements are not suitable for automated transformations, and only manual heuristics, such as Abbott's heuristics [4], are in general followed [9,32]. However, if a (semi-) automated transformation technology from requirements to an analysis model were devised, it would help fill an important gap in the MDA software development lifecycle.If these transformations can be automated, full traceability from requirements (through PIM and PSM) to the ultimate software code can be obtained at the same time. Traceability is the ability to link requirements to corresponding analysis and design models, code, test cases, and other software artifacts. Traceability is important during software development because it enables engineers to understand the connections between various artifacts of a software system, and it is also used to determine whether

show abstract

A Data-Centric Algorithm for Identifying Use Cases

Eessaar

2016

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deriving static and dynamic concepts from software requirements using sophisticated tagging

Cited by 35 publications

References 8 publications

On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models

On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models

A systematic review of transformation approaches between user requirements and analysis models

A Data-Centric Algorithm for Identifying Use Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About