Open Access
Subscription Access
Open Access
Subscription Access
Formal Methods and its Importance in Minimizing Ambiguity in the Requirement Engineering Document Phase of SDLC
Subscribe/Renew Journal
The Requirements are the foundation for delivering quality software. And in today's business era different business organization needs commercial software and the software need to be delivered on time and within budget. And thus we need a complete, concise and accurate requirement engineering document. But most of the software which is delivered have errors, bugs and lack of functionality. And the reason for this is that the RE document is always written in natural language which is prone to ambiguities. And thus we need a mathematical method or a scientific method for writing RE documents. The formal methods in the past few years emerged as a most important or central issues in software engineering. And the precise specification, modeling and verification is identified in most of the engineering disciplines. And the formal methods provide us a tool to precisely describe a system correctly. The formal methods are a particular kind of mathematical techniques meant for specification, development and verification of software and hardware system. The primary reason of using mathematical formalism in RE text is the quality of the requirements and possibility of automation of some of the processes. In this paper we compare the different types of formal methods by analyzing there merits and demerits in the background of the different parameters like concurrency control, object oriented concepts and requirement engineering perspective.
Keywords
- Hall, A. (1990). Seven myths of formal methods. IEEE software, 7(5), 11-19.
- Meyer, B. (1985). On formalism in specification. IEEE software, January, 2(1), 6-26.
- Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall.
- Kamsties, E., Berry, D. M., & Paech, B. (2001). Detecting Ambiguity in requirement document using inspection. In Workshops on Inspection in Software Engineering - Paris, (pp. 68-80).
- Mich, L., & Garigaliano, R. (2001). Ambiguity measure in Requirement Engineering, (pp. 39-48).
- Kamsties, E., Knethen, A. V., Philipps, J., & Schatz, B. (2001). An empirical investigation of the defect detection capabilities of requirements specification languages. In Proceedings of the Sixth CAiSE/ IFIP8. International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, (pp. 125-136).
- Osborne, M., & Macnish, C. K. (2001). Processing natural language software requirement specification. Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirement Engineering, (pp. 229-236).
- Mich, L., & Garigaliano , R. (2000). Ambiguity measure in requirement engineering. (pp 39 -48).
- Kamsties, E., & Peach, B. (2000). Taming Ambiguity in Natural Language Requirements. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference Software and Systems Engineering and their Applications.
- Hussain, I. (2007). Using text classification system to Automate Ambiguity Detection in SRS document. Masters Thesis, Computer science and Software Engineering Department, Concordia University, Montreal Canada, August 2007.
- Ferrari, A., & Gneisi, S. (2012). Using collective intelligence to detect pragmatic ambiguities. In Proceedings of RE Conferences, (pp. 191-200).
- Fabbrini, F., Fusani, M., Gnesi, S., & Lami, G. (2001). The linguistic approach to the natural language requirements, quality: Benefits for the use of automatic tool. In Proceedings of the twenty sixth annual IEEE computer society - NASA GFSC software engineering workshop, (pp. 97-105).
- Pandey, S. K., & Batra, M. (2013). Formal methods in requirements phase of SDLC. International Journal of Computer Applications, May, 70(13), 7-14.
- Bijorner, D., & Cuellar, J. R. (1998). Software engineering Education: Roles of formal specification and design calculi. In Annals of Software Engineering, 6, 365-409.
- Wing, M., & Davies, J. (2014). Formal Methods, I and II LNCS, (pp. 1708-1709), Springer.
- Wikipedia. OBJ. Retrieved on March 18, 2013.
- Martin, D., Tom, K., Steve, L., & Ursula, M. (2013). Lightweight Formal Methods for Computer Algebra Systems, University of St Andrews, UK Retrieved on April 10, 2013.
- Guttag, J. V., Horning, J. J., Garland, S. J., Jones, K. D., Modet, A., & Wing, J. M. (1993). Larch: Languages and Tools for Formal Specification, January.
- Cheng, B. H. C., & Atlee, J. M. (2007). Research Directions in Requirements Engineering, IEEE, May, (pp 285-303).
- Spivey, J. M. (1998). The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. (2nded), New York: Prentice-Hall.
- Baldwin, T., Li, Y., & Alexe, B. (2013). Automatic term ambiguity detection. IBM Research, Proceedings of 51st Annual Meeting of Association for Computational Linguistic, August, (pp.804-809).
- Wilson, W. (1997). Writing Effective Requirement Specification. USAF Software Technology Conference, Utah.
- Denver, C., Berry, D. M., & Kamsties, E. (2003). Higher quality requirements specifications through natural language patterns. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on SoftwareScience, Technology & Engineering. (SwSTE’03), IEEE Computer Society Press, (pp. 80-89).
- Ryan, K. (1993). The role of natural language in requirement engineering. In Proceedings of ISRE, (pp. 240-242).
- Kiyavitskaya, N., Zeni, N., Mich, L., & Berry, D. M. (2008). Requirements for tools for ambiguity identification and measurement in natural language requirement specifications, (pp. 207-239).Springer- Verlag London Limited.
Abstract Views: 365
PDF Views: 4