Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)最新文献

Using Expertise as a Framework for Evaluating Requirements Technology 使用专业知识作为评估需求技术的框架

Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop) Pub Date : 2006-09-11 DOI: 10.1109/CERE.2006.9

B. Al-Ani, S. Sim

{"title":"Using Expertise as a Framework for Evaluating Requirements Technology","authors":"B. Al-Ani, S. Sim","doi":"10.1109/CERE.2006.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CERE.2006.9","url":null,"abstract":"The field of requirements engineering (RE) is rich with a myriad of technologies that aim to support activities within the requirements engineering process. These range from elicitation to management of RE work products. As such, the range and nature of these technologies are broad; this makes an evaluation of their effectiveness challenging. This position paper proposes an expertise framework as a basis for conducting comparative evaluation of RE technologies. Expertise is characterized using three dimensions: Practical Skill, Theoretical Knowledge, and Problem Domain. Expertise is increased by applying different processes to each dimension: Practical Skill needs to be abstracted; Theoretical Knowledge needs to be conditionalized, and Problem Domains need to be Contextualized. These dimensions and processes can be used as the basis for evaluating requirements tools and methods. In other words, to what extent does a particular technology raise the level of expertise for a requirements engineer by augmenting one of these processes? The framework is presented by applying it to evaluate four different techniques (ethnography, use cases, scenarios, and traceability matrix).","PeriodicalId":148770,"journal":{"name":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131335828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Criteria for Comparing Requirements Variability Modeling Notations for Product Lines 比较产品线的需求可变性建模符号的标准

Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop) Pub Date : 2006-09-11 DOI: 10.1109/CERE.2006.2

Olfa Djebbi, C. Salinesi

引用次数: 59

Using a Hybrid Method for Formalizing Informal Stakeholder Requirements Inputs 使用混合方法形式化非正式涉众需求输入

Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop) Pub Date : 2006-09-11 DOI: 10.1109/CERE.2006.8

Hasan Kitapci, B. Boehm

{"title":"Using a Hybrid Method for Formalizing Informal Stakeholder Requirements Inputs","authors":"Hasan Kitapci, B. Boehm","doi":"10.1109/CERE.2006.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CERE.2006.8","url":null,"abstract":"Success of software development depends on the quality of the requirements specification. Moreover, good - sufficiently complete, consistent, traceable, and testable - requirements are a prerequisite for later activities of the development project. Without understanding what the stakeholders really want and need, and writing these requirements, projects will not develop what the stakeholders wanted. During the development of the WinWin negotiation model and the EasyWinWin requirements negotiation method, we have gained considerable experience in capturing informal requirements in over 100 projects. However, the transition from informal representations to semi-formal and formal representations is still a challenging problem. Based on our analysis of the projects to date, we have developed an integrated set of gap-bridging methods as a hybrid method to formalize informal stakeholder requirements inputs. The basic idea is that orchestrating these gap-bridging methods through the requirements engineering process can significantly eliminate requirements related problems and ease the process of formality transition.","PeriodicalId":148770,"journal":{"name":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128286401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 11

Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD 特征图的比较语义:FFD与vDFD

Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop) Pub Date : 2006-09-11 DOI: 10.1109/CERE.2006.1

Jean-Christophe Trigaux, P. Heymans, Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Andreas Classen

{"title":"Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD","authors":"Jean-Christophe Trigaux, P. Heymans, Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Andreas Classen","doi":"10.1109/CERE.2006.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CERE.2006.1","url":null,"abstract":"Feature Diagrams are a popular family of modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. In our previous research, we advocated the use of formal semantics as an indispensable means to clarify discussions about feature diagrams and to facilitate safe and efficient tool automation. We presented a generic formal semantics for feature diagram languages and criteria to compare them. However, other formal semantics exist. We already informally argued in favour of our semantics which, we think, is more abstract, more concise and not tool dependent. However, some of these claims needed to be further objectified. The purpose of this paper is to compare the semantics proposed by van Deursen and Klint with our own following the methodology of comparative semantics. To be made amenable to comparison, van Deursen and Klint's tool-based definition is first recalled and redefined by correcting some minor mistakes. Their semantics is then mapped to ours through an abstraction function. We then proceed to compare the expressiveness, embeddability and succinctness of both approaches. The study tends to confirm our semantic choices as well as our tool-independent methodology. It also demonstrates that van Deursen and Klint's language is fully expressive and provides various results likely to help tool developers, especially for implementing model transformations.","PeriodicalId":148770,"journal":{"name":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124618181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

On a Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Social-Agent Scenario Visualization 社会-代理场景可视化的混合方法评价

Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop) Pub Date : 2006-09-11 DOI: 10.1109/CERE.2006.7

T. Alspaugh, E. Baumer, Bill Tomlinson

引用次数: 1