Extending requirement specifications using analogy

ABSTRACT

Creating the specifications for a new system is a labour intensive task. Analogical reasoning provides a flexible mechanism to retrieve and adapt past specifications. Previous work in applying analogical reasoning to requirement specifications has departed from the psychological foundations of analogical reasoning, introducing specific ontologies and abstract templates to constrain the reasoning process. We argue that similar results can be obtained without introducing domain specific constraints and that using analogical reasoning engines based on well-established psychological theories, such as the Structure-Mapping Engine, will lead to better results and scale up more effectively.

REFERENCES

• 1: David R. Barstow, Domain-specific automatic programming, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.11 n.11, p.1321-1336, Nov. 1985 [doi>10.1109/TSE.1985.231881]
• 2: Neil Maiden , Alistair Sutcliffe, Exploiting reusable specifications through analogy, Communications of the ACM, v.35 n.4, p.55-64, April 1992 [doi>10.1145/129852.129857]
• 3: Maiden, N.A. and A.G. Sutcliffe, Analogical retrieval in reuse-oriented requirements engineering. Software Engineering Journal, 1996. 11(5): p. 281-292.
• 4: Philippe Massonet , Axel Van Lamsweerde, Analogical Reuse of Requirements Frameworks, Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'97), p.26, January 05-08, 1997
• 5: Alistair Sutcliffe , Neil Maiden, The Domain Theory for Requirements Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.24 n.3, p.174-196, March 1998 [doi>10.1109/32.667878]
• 6: Brian Falkenhainer , Kenneth D. Forbus , Dedre Gentner, The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples, Artificial Intelligence, v.41 n.1, p.1-63, Nov. 1989 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5]
• 7: Gentner, D., Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 1983. 7(2).
• 8: Holyoak, K.J. and P. Thagard, Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 1989. 13: p. 295-355.
• 9: Keane, M.T., T. Ledgeway, and S. Duff, Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models. Cognitive Science, 1994. 18: p. 387-438.
• 10: Forbus, K., et al., Analogy just looks like high level perception: Why a domain-general approach to analogical mapping is right. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 1997.
• 11: Melanie Mitchell, Analogy-making as perception: a computer model, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993
• 12: Forbus, K., D. Gentner, and K. Law, MAC/FAC: a model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 1995. 19(2): p. 141-204.
• 13: Forbus, K.D. and D. Gentner. Structural Evaluation of Analogies: What counts? in the Cognitive Science Society. 1989.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.6 Learning
          Subjects: Analogies

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.3 Software Management
          Subjects: Software development

General Terms:
Design, Management, Performance, Theory

Keywords:
analogical reasoning, specification-reuse