|
 ABSTRACT
Software engineers must systematically account for the broad scope of environmental behavior, including nonfunctional requirements, intended to coordinate the actions of stakeholders and software systems. The Inquiry Cycle Model (ICM) provides engineers with a strategy to acquire and refine these requirements by having domain experts answer six questions: who, what, where, when, how, and why. Goal-based requirements engineering has led to the formalization of requirements to answer the ICM questions about when, how, and why goals are achieved, maintained, or avoided. In this article, we present a systematic process called Semantic Parameterization for expressing natural language domain descriptions of goals as specifications in description logic. The formalization of goals in description logic allows engineers to automate inquiries using who, what, and where questions, completing the formalization of the ICM questions. The contributions of this approach include new theory to conceptually compare and disambiguate goal specifications that enables querying goals and organizing goals into specialization hierarchies. The artifacts in the process include a dictionary that aligns the domain lexicon with unique concepts, distinguishing between synonyms and polysemes, and several natural language patterns that aid engineers in mapping common domain descriptions to formal specifications. Semantic Parameterization has been empirically validated in three case studies on policy and regulatory descriptions that govern information systems in the finance and health-care domains.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
|
| |
2
|
|
| |
3
|
Annie I. Anton , Julia B. Earp , Qingfeng He , William Stufflebeam , Davide Bolchini , Carlos Jensen, Financial Privacy Policies and the Need for Standardization, IEEE Security and Privacy, v.2 n.2, p.36-45, March 2004
[doi> 10.1109/MSECP.2004.1281243]
|
| |
4
|
|
| |
5
|
|
| |
6
|
|
| |
7
|
|
 |
8
|
|
| |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
Chen, P.-S. 1983. English sentence structure and entity-relationship diagrams. Inform. Sci. 29, 2-3, 127--149.
|
| |
11
|
Cregan, A., Schwitter, R., and Meyer, T. 2007. Sydney Owl syntax—towards a controlled natural language syntax for Owl 1.1. In Proceedings of 3rd OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop. Vol. 258. CEUR-Workshop Proceedings, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
|
| |
12
|
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
|
| |
15
|
DHHS. 2003a. Fact Sheet: Protecting the Privacy of Patients' Health Information. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
|
| |
16
|
DHHS. 2003b. Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information. 45 CFR Part 160, Part 164 Subpart E. In Federal Register, 68, 34.
|
| |
17
|
Fellbaum, C. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
|
| |
18
|
Ariel Fuxman , Lin Liu , John Mylopoulos , Marco Pistore , Marco Roveri , Paolo Traverso, Specifying and analyzing early requirements in Tropos, Requirements Engineering, v.9 n.2, p.132-150, May 2004
[doi> 10.1007/s00766-004-0191-7]
|
| |
19
|
|
| |
20
|
|
| |
21
|
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago, IL.
|
| |
22
|
Horty, J. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
|
| |
23
|
|
| |
24
|
Jackson, M. and Zave, P. 1993. Domain descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 56--64.
|
| |
25
|
|
| |
26
|
Kaljurand, K. and Fuchs, N. 2006. Bidirectional mapping between Owl Dl and Attempto Controlled English. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Principles and Practice in Semantic Web Reasoning. Vol. 4187. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 179--189.
|
| |
27
|
Kaljurand, K. and Fuchs, N. 2007. Verbalizing Owl in Attempto Controlled English. In Proceedings of the 3rd OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop. Vol. 258. CEUR-Workshop Proceedings, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
|
| |
28
|
Keenan, E. and Faltz, L. 1985. Boolean Semantics for Natural Language. D. Reidel, Boston, MA, chapter “Transitive Adjective Phrases”, 190--192.
|
| |
29
|
|
| |
30
|
Matuszek, C., Cabral, J., Witbrock, M., and DeOliveira, J. 2006. An introduction to the syntax and content of cyc. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2006 Spring Symposium on Formalizing and Compiling Background Knowledge and Its Application to Knowledge Representation and Question Answering. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 44--49.
|
| |
31
|
|
| |
32
|
|
| |
33
|
Nirenburg, S. and Raskin, V. 2004. Ontological Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
|
| |
34
|
|
| |
35
|
Scott P. Overmyer , Benoit Lavoie , Owen Rambow, Conceptual modeling through linguistic analysis using LIDA, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, p.401-410, May 12-19, 2001, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
| |
36
|
|
| |
37
|
|
| |
38
|
|
| |
39
|
|
| |
40
|
|
| |
41
|
|
| |
42
|
|
| |
43
|
Wasson, K., Knight, J., Strunk, E., and Travis, S. 2003. Tools supporting the communication of critical domain knowledge in high-consequence systems development. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security. Vol. 2788. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 317--330.
|
| |
44
|
Welty, C. 2002. Are upper-level ontologies worth the effort? In 8th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA.
|
| |
45
|
|
|
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime
Windows Media Player
Real Player
Pdf
D.2