识别和解决行为要求中的模糊之处,并在语义上准确地将其形式化

IF 2 3区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Thuy Nguyen, Imen Sayar, Sophie Ebersold, Jean-Michel Bruel
{"title":"识别和解决行为要求中的模糊之处,并在语义上准确地将其形式化","authors":"Thuy Nguyen, Imen Sayar, Sophie Ebersold, Jean-Michel Bruel","doi":"10.1007/s10270-023-01142-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To correctly formalise requirements expressed in natural language, <i>ambiguities</i> must first be identified and then fixed. This paper focuses on <i>behavioural requirements</i> (i.e. requirements related to dynamic aspects and phenomena). Its first objective is to show, based on a practical, public case study, that the disambiguation process <i>cannot be fully automated</i>: even though natural language processing (NLP) tools and machine learning might help in the <i>identification</i> of ambiguities, <i>fixing</i> them often requires a deep, application-specific <i>understanding</i> of the reasons of being of the system of interest, of the characteristics of its environment, of which trade-offs between conflicting objectives are acceptable, and of what is achievable and what is not; it may also require arduous negotiations between stakeholders. Such an understanding and consensus-making ability is not in the reach of current tools and technologies, and will likely remain so for a long while. Beyond ambiguity, requirements are often marred by various other types of defects that could lead to wholly unacceptable consequences. In particular, operational experience shows that requirements <i>inadequacy</i> (whereby, in some of the situations the system could face, what is required is woefully inappropriate or what is necessary is left unspecified) is a significant cause for systems failing to meet expectations. The second objective of this paper is to propose a semantically accurate behavioural requirements formalisation format enabling <i>tool-supported requirements verification</i>, notably with <i>simulation</i>. Such support is necessary for the engineering of large and complex <i>cyber-physical</i> and <i>socio-technical</i> systems to ensure, first, that the specified requirements indeed reflect the true intentions of their authors and second, that they are adequate for all the situations the system could face. To that end, the paper presents an overview of the BASAALT (<i>Behaviour Analysis and Simulation All Along systems Life Time</i>) systems engineering method, and of FORM-L (<i>FOrmal Requirements Modelling Language</i>), its supporting language, which aims at representing as accurately and completely as possible the semantics expressed in the original, natural language behavioural requirements, and is markedly different from languages intended for software code generation. The paper shows that generally, semantically accurate formalisation is not a simple <i>paraphrasing</i> of the original natural language requirements: additional elements are often needed to fully and explicitly reflect all that is implied in natural language. To provide such complements for the case study presented in the paper, we had to follow different <i>formalisation patterns</i>, i.e. sequences of formalisation steps. For this paper, to avoid being skewed by what a particular automatic tool can and cannot do, BASAALT and FORM-L were applied manually. Still, the lessons learned could be used to specify and develop NLP tools that could assist the disambiguation and formalisation processes. However, more studies are needed to determine whether an exhaustive set of formalisation patterns can be identified to fully automate the formalisation process.</p>","PeriodicalId":49507,"journal":{"name":"Software and Systems Modeling","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying and fixing ambiguities in, and semantically accurate formalisation of, behavioural requirements\",\"authors\":\"Thuy Nguyen, Imen Sayar, Sophie Ebersold, Jean-Michel Bruel\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10270-023-01142-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>To correctly formalise requirements expressed in natural language, <i>ambiguities</i> must first be identified and then fixed. This paper focuses on <i>behavioural requirements</i> (i.e. requirements related to dynamic aspects and phenomena). Its first objective is to show, based on a practical, public case study, that the disambiguation process <i>cannot be fully automated</i>: even though natural language processing (NLP) tools and machine learning might help in the <i>identification</i> of ambiguities, <i>fixing</i> them often requires a deep, application-specific <i>understanding</i> of the reasons of being of the system of interest, of the characteristics of its environment, of which trade-offs between conflicting objectives are acceptable, and of what is achievable and what is not; it may also require arduous negotiations between stakeholders. Such an understanding and consensus-making ability is not in the reach of current tools and technologies, and will likely remain so for a long while. Beyond ambiguity, requirements are often marred by various other types of defects that could lead to wholly unacceptable consequences. In particular, operational experience shows that requirements <i>inadequacy</i> (whereby, in some of the situations the system could face, what is required is woefully inappropriate or what is necessary is left unspecified) is a significant cause for systems failing to meet expectations. The second objective of this paper is to propose a semantically accurate behavioural requirements formalisation format enabling <i>tool-supported requirements verification</i>, notably with <i>simulation</i>. Such support is necessary for the engineering of large and complex <i>cyber-physical</i> and <i>socio-technical</i> systems to ensure, first, that the specified requirements indeed reflect the true intentions of their authors and second, that they are adequate for all the situations the system could face. To that end, the paper presents an overview of the BASAALT (<i>Behaviour Analysis and Simulation All Along systems Life Time</i>) systems engineering method, and of FORM-L (<i>FOrmal Requirements Modelling Language</i>), its supporting language, which aims at representing as accurately and completely as possible the semantics expressed in the original, natural language behavioural requirements, and is markedly different from languages intended for software code generation. The paper shows that generally, semantically accurate formalisation is not a simple <i>paraphrasing</i> of the original natural language requirements: additional elements are often needed to fully and explicitly reflect all that is implied in natural language. To provide such complements for the case study presented in the paper, we had to follow different <i>formalisation patterns</i>, i.e. sequences of formalisation steps. For this paper, to avoid being skewed by what a particular automatic tool can and cannot do, BASAALT and FORM-L were applied manually. Still, the lessons learned could be used to specify and develop NLP tools that could assist the disambiguation and formalisation processes. However, more studies are needed to determine whether an exhaustive set of formalisation patterns can be identified to fully automate the formalisation process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Software and Systems Modeling\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Software and Systems Modeling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-023-01142-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Software and Systems Modeling","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-023-01142-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

要正确地将用自然语言表达的需求形式化,必须首先识别并解决模糊之处。本文的重点是行为需求(即与动态方面和现象有关的需求)。本文的第一个目标是通过一个实际的公开案例研究,说明消除歧义的过程不可能完全自动化:即使自然语言处理(NLP)工具和机器学习可以帮助识别歧义,但要消除歧义,往往需要对相关系统的存在原因、环境特征、冲突目标之间哪些是可以接受的、哪些是可以实现的、哪些是不可以实现的,有一个深刻的、针对具体应用的理解;还可能需要利益相关者之间进行艰苦的谈判。这种理解和达成共识的能力是目前的工具和技术所无法企及的,而且可能在很长一段时间内都是如此。除了模棱两可之外,需求往往还存在其他各种缺陷,可能导致完全不可接受的后果。特别是,运行经验表明,需求不充分(即在系统可能面临的某些情况下,所需的东西非常不合适,或所需的东西没有明确说明)是系统无法达到预期目标的一个重要原因。本文的第二个目标是提出一种语义准确的行为需求形式化格式,使工具支持需求验证,特别是模拟验证。这种支持对于大型复杂的网络物理和社会技术系统的工程设计是必要的,以确保:第一,指定的需求确实反映了作者的真实意图;第二,这些需求足以应对系统可能面临的所有情况。为此,本文概述了 BASAALT(全生命周期行为分析与仿真)系统工程方法及其支持语言 FORM-L(FOrmal Requirements Modelling Language),该语言旨在尽可能准确、完整地表达原始自然语言行为需求中的语义,与用于软件代码生成的语言明显不同。本文表明,一般来说,语义准确的形式化并不是对原始自然语言需求的简单转述:往往需要额外的元素来全面、明确地反映自然语言中隐含的所有内容。为了给本文介绍的案例研究提供这样的补充,我们必须遵循不同的形式化模式,即形式化步骤的序列。在本文中,为了避免受到特定自动工具能做什么和不能做什么的影响,BASAALT 和 FORM-L 都是手动应用的。不过,所吸取的经验教训仍可用于指定和开发可协助消歧和形式化过程的 NLP 工具。不过,还需要进行更多的研究,以确定是否能识别出一套详尽的形式化模式,从而实现形式化过程的完全自动化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Identifying and fixing ambiguities in, and semantically accurate formalisation of, behavioural requirements

Identifying and fixing ambiguities in, and semantically accurate formalisation of, behavioural requirements

To correctly formalise requirements expressed in natural language, ambiguities must first be identified and then fixed. This paper focuses on behavioural requirements (i.e. requirements related to dynamic aspects and phenomena). Its first objective is to show, based on a practical, public case study, that the disambiguation process cannot be fully automated: even though natural language processing (NLP) tools and machine learning might help in the identification of ambiguities, fixing them often requires a deep, application-specific understanding of the reasons of being of the system of interest, of the characteristics of its environment, of which trade-offs between conflicting objectives are acceptable, and of what is achievable and what is not; it may also require arduous negotiations between stakeholders. Such an understanding and consensus-making ability is not in the reach of current tools and technologies, and will likely remain so for a long while. Beyond ambiguity, requirements are often marred by various other types of defects that could lead to wholly unacceptable consequences. In particular, operational experience shows that requirements inadequacy (whereby, in some of the situations the system could face, what is required is woefully inappropriate or what is necessary is left unspecified) is a significant cause for systems failing to meet expectations. The second objective of this paper is to propose a semantically accurate behavioural requirements formalisation format enabling tool-supported requirements verification, notably with simulation. Such support is necessary for the engineering of large and complex cyber-physical and socio-technical systems to ensure, first, that the specified requirements indeed reflect the true intentions of their authors and second, that they are adequate for all the situations the system could face. To that end, the paper presents an overview of the BASAALT (Behaviour Analysis and Simulation All Along systems Life Time) systems engineering method, and of FORM-L (FOrmal Requirements Modelling Language), its supporting language, which aims at representing as accurately and completely as possible the semantics expressed in the original, natural language behavioural requirements, and is markedly different from languages intended for software code generation. The paper shows that generally, semantically accurate formalisation is not a simple paraphrasing of the original natural language requirements: additional elements are often needed to fully and explicitly reflect all that is implied in natural language. To provide such complements for the case study presented in the paper, we had to follow different formalisation patterns, i.e. sequences of formalisation steps. For this paper, to avoid being skewed by what a particular automatic tool can and cannot do, BASAALT and FORM-L were applied manually. Still, the lessons learned could be used to specify and develop NLP tools that could assist the disambiguation and formalisation processes. However, more studies are needed to determine whether an exhaustive set of formalisation patterns can be identified to fully automate the formalisation process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Software and Systems Modeling
Software and Systems Modeling 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: We invite authors to submit papers that discuss and analyze research challenges and experiences pertaining to software and system modeling languages, techniques, tools, practices and other facets. The following are some of the topic areas that are of special interest, but the journal publishes on a wide range of software and systems modeling concerns: Domain-specific models and modeling standards; Model-based testing techniques; Model-based simulation techniques; Formal syntax and semantics of modeling languages such as the UML; Rigorous model-based analysis; Model composition, refinement and transformation; Software Language Engineering; Modeling Languages in Science and Engineering; Language Adaptation and Composition; Metamodeling techniques; Measuring quality of models and languages; Ontological approaches to model engineering; Generating test and code artifacts from models; Model synthesis; Methodology; Model development tool environments; Modeling Cyberphysical Systems; Data intensive modeling; Derivation of explicit models from data; Case studies and experience reports with significant modeling lessons learned; Comparative analyses of modeling languages and techniques; Scientific assessment of modeling practices
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信