A Systematic Review on the Use of Ontologies in Requirements Engineering

Diego Dermeval, Jéssyka Vilela, I. Bittencourt, J. Castro, Seiji Isotani, P. Brito
{"title":"A Systematic Review on the Use of Ontologies in Requirements Engineering","authors":"Diego Dermeval, Jéssyka Vilela, I. Bittencourt, J. Castro, Seiji Isotani, P. Brito","doi":"10.1109/SBES.2014.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Requirements Engineering (RE) discipline deals with elicitation, analysis, specification, validation and management of requirements. Several ontology-driven approaches have been proposed to improve these RE activities. However, the requirements engineering community still lacks a comprehensive understanding on how ontologies are used in RE process. The objective of this work is to explore how ontologies are employed in requirements engineering, aiming to identify the main phases addressed, the languages that have been used, the types of existing contributions, as well as the requirements modeling styles have been used and the benefits of using ontology in RE. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify the primary studies on the use of ontologies in RE, following a pre-defined review protocol. Sixty-six papers were selected, covering the five main RE process phases. Moreover, we have identified thirteen ontology-related languages. Furthermore, twenty-six empirical studies have been identified which provided evidence of five group of benefits. The main findings of this review are: (1) there are empirical evidences to state that ontologies benefit RE activities in both academy and industry settings, helping to reduce ambiguity, inconsistency and incompleteness of requirements; (2) the vast majority of papers do not meet all RE phases; (3) nearly half of the papers use W3C recommended languages; (4) the majority of contributions are supported by a tool; and (5) there is a great diversity of requirements modeling styles supported by ontologies.","PeriodicalId":426125,"journal":{"name":"2014 Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SBES.2014.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

Requirements Engineering (RE) discipline deals with elicitation, analysis, specification, validation and management of requirements. Several ontology-driven approaches have been proposed to improve these RE activities. However, the requirements engineering community still lacks a comprehensive understanding on how ontologies are used in RE process. The objective of this work is to explore how ontologies are employed in requirements engineering, aiming to identify the main phases addressed, the languages that have been used, the types of existing contributions, as well as the requirements modeling styles have been used and the benefits of using ontology in RE. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify the primary studies on the use of ontologies in RE, following a pre-defined review protocol. Sixty-six papers were selected, covering the five main RE process phases. Moreover, we have identified thirteen ontology-related languages. Furthermore, twenty-six empirical studies have been identified which provided evidence of five group of benefits. The main findings of this review are: (1) there are empirical evidences to state that ontologies benefit RE activities in both academy and industry settings, helping to reduce ambiguity, inconsistency and incompleteness of requirements; (2) the vast majority of papers do not meet all RE phases; (3) nearly half of the papers use W3C recommended languages; (4) the majority of contributions are supported by a tool; and (5) there is a great diversity of requirements modeling styles supported by ontologies.
需求工程中本体使用的系统回顾
需求工程(RE)规程处理需求的引出、分析、说明、验证和管理。已经提出了几种本体驱动的方法来改进这些RE活动。然而,需求工程社区仍然缺乏对如何在RE过程中使用本体的全面理解。这项工作的目的是探索如何在需求工程中使用本体,旨在确定所涉及的主要阶段,所使用的语言,现有贡献的类型,以及在可再生能源中使用本体的需求建模风格和好处。我们进行了系统的文献综述,以确定在可再生能源中使用本体的主要研究,遵循预定义的审查协议。66篇论文被选中,涵盖了可再生能源过程的五个主要阶段。此外,我们已经确定了13种与本体相关的语言。此外,已经确定了26项实证研究,这些研究提供了五组益处的证据。本研究的主要发现有:(1)有实证证据表明本体论有利于学术和行业环境中的可再生能源活动,有助于减少需求的模糊性、不一致性和不完整性;(2)绝大多数论文不符合所有RE阶段;(3)近一半的论文使用W3C推荐语言;(4)大部分贡献由工具支持;(5)本体支持的需求建模风格有很大的多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信