对形式化模式语言的可理解性进行系统调整和研究

IF 2.1 3区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Elisabeth Henkel, Nico Hauff, Vincent Langenfeld, Lukas Eber, Andreas Podelski
{"title":"对形式化模式语言的可理解性进行系统调整和研究","authors":"Elisabeth Henkel, Nico Hauff, Vincent Langenfeld, Lukas Eber, Andreas Podelski","doi":"10.1007/s00766-024-00417-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Formal pattern languages are used in industry to communicate and analyse requirements, as they are said to be both machine-readable and intuitively understandable for humans. The questions arise to what extent this intuitive understanding of a pattern language is in agreement with its formal semantics and whether this understanding can be increased systematically. We present two consecutive empirical experiments to address these questions. The formal semantics serves as an objective judge on the intuitive understanding. Our experiments confirm the practical usefulness of <span>HanforPL</span> insofar the intuition matches the formal semantics in most practically relevant cases. They also reveal a number of edge cases where even a prior exposure to formal logic is not a guarantee for correct understanding. We present and validate systematic adjustments to the patterns, leading to several large increases in understandability but come at the cost of new, but less impactful ambiguities. We demonstrate how an inquiry on the alignment of the intuitive and formal semantics of a pattern language can help to understand and improve the language. While results regarding the understandability of <span>HanforPL</span> are favourable in commonly used cases, there is potential for improvement. The systematic adaption of patterns shows that small modifications may have large effects on the alignment of formal and intuitive semantics, and that modification must be considered with caution in the context of the respective pattern to avoid unintentionally adding new ambiguities. This article is an extension of our published REFSQ paper.</p>","PeriodicalId":20912,"journal":{"name":"Requirements Engineering","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic adaptation and investigation of the understandability of a formal pattern language\",\"authors\":\"Elisabeth Henkel, Nico Hauff, Vincent Langenfeld, Lukas Eber, Andreas Podelski\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00766-024-00417-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Formal pattern languages are used in industry to communicate and analyse requirements, as they are said to be both machine-readable and intuitively understandable for humans. The questions arise to what extent this intuitive understanding of a pattern language is in agreement with its formal semantics and whether this understanding can be increased systematically. We present two consecutive empirical experiments to address these questions. The formal semantics serves as an objective judge on the intuitive understanding. Our experiments confirm the practical usefulness of <span>HanforPL</span> insofar the intuition matches the formal semantics in most practically relevant cases. They also reveal a number of edge cases where even a prior exposure to formal logic is not a guarantee for correct understanding. We present and validate systematic adjustments to the patterns, leading to several large increases in understandability but come at the cost of new, but less impactful ambiguities. We demonstrate how an inquiry on the alignment of the intuitive and formal semantics of a pattern language can help to understand and improve the language. While results regarding the understandability of <span>HanforPL</span> are favourable in commonly used cases, there is potential for improvement. The systematic adaption of patterns shows that small modifications may have large effects on the alignment of formal and intuitive semantics, and that modification must be considered with caution in the context of the respective pattern to avoid unintentionally adding new ambiguities. This article is an extension of our published REFSQ paper.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Requirements Engineering\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Requirements Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-024-00417-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Requirements Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-024-00417-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在工业领域,正式模式语言被用来交流和分析需求,因为据说它们既能被机器读懂,又能被人类直观地理解。问题是,对模式语言的直观理解在多大程度上与其形式语义一致,以及这种理解是否可以系统地提高。为了解决这些问题,我们连续进行了两次实证实验。形式语义是对直观理解的客观评判。我们的实验证实了 HanforPL 的实用性,因为在大多数实际相关的情况下,直觉与形式语义是一致的。实验还揭示了一些边缘案例,在这些案例中,即使事先接触过形式逻辑也不能保证正确理解。我们提出并验证了对这些模式的系统调整,从而大大提高了可理解性,但代价是产生了新的但影响较小的模糊之处。我们展示了对模式语言的直观语义和形式语义的一致性进行研究如何有助于理解和改进该语言。虽然在常用情况下,HanforPL 的可理解性结果良好,但仍有改进的余地。对模式的系统性调整表明,微小的修改可能会对形式语义和直观语义的一致性产生很大影响,而且必须在各自模式的上下文中谨慎考虑修改,以避免无意中增加新的歧义。本文是我们已发表的 REFSQ 论文的延伸。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Systematic adaptation and investigation of the understandability of a formal pattern language

Systematic adaptation and investigation of the understandability of a formal pattern language

Formal pattern languages are used in industry to communicate and analyse requirements, as they are said to be both machine-readable and intuitively understandable for humans. The questions arise to what extent this intuitive understanding of a pattern language is in agreement with its formal semantics and whether this understanding can be increased systematically. We present two consecutive empirical experiments to address these questions. The formal semantics serves as an objective judge on the intuitive understanding. Our experiments confirm the practical usefulness of HanforPL insofar the intuition matches the formal semantics in most practically relevant cases. They also reveal a number of edge cases where even a prior exposure to formal logic is not a guarantee for correct understanding. We present and validate systematic adjustments to the patterns, leading to several large increases in understandability but come at the cost of new, but less impactful ambiguities. We demonstrate how an inquiry on the alignment of the intuitive and formal semantics of a pattern language can help to understand and improve the language. While results regarding the understandability of HanforPL are favourable in commonly used cases, there is potential for improvement. The systematic adaption of patterns shows that small modifications may have large effects on the alignment of formal and intuitive semantics, and that modification must be considered with caution in the context of the respective pattern to avoid unintentionally adding new ambiguities. This article is an extension of our published REFSQ paper.

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
Requirements Engineering
Requirements Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal provides a focus for the dissemination of new results about the elicitation, representation and validation of requirements of software intensive information systems or applications. Theoretical and applied submissions are welcome, but all papers must explicitly address: -the practical consequences of the ideas for the design of complex systems -how the ideas should be evaluated by the reflective practitioner The journal is motivated by a multi-disciplinary view that considers requirements not only in terms of software components specification but also in terms of activities for their elicitation, representation and agreement, carried out within an organisational and social context. To this end, contributions are sought from fields such as software engineering, information systems, occupational sociology, cognitive and organisational psychology, human-computer interaction, computer-supported cooperative work, linguistics and philosophy for work addressing specifically requirements engineering issues.
×
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