Nitesh Narayan, Yang Li, Jonas Helming, Maximilian Koegel


Requirement Traceability provides the ability to follow the life-cycle of a requirement from its evolution till subsequent refinement and use. A key issue that restricts the adaptation of approaches to create and maintain these relationships is the lack of tool support that employs a centralized repository for heterogeneous artifacts. Different artifacts are stored in different repositories and thus traceability links are expensive to maintain. Centralized repository can facilitate capturing the stakeholders interaction, which result in creation and modification of the artifacts and their relationship. These interactions hold the rationale behind changes. In this paper we propose a novel model-based CASE tool UNICASE, which aids in maintaining requirements traceability by incorporating disparate artifacts. Further, the tool facilitates capturing the evolution of requirements invoked by the informal communication in the form of discussion and comments.


  1. Antoniol, G., Canfora, G., Casazza, G., and De Lucia, A. (2001). Maintaining traceability links during objectoriented software evolution. Software: Practice and Experience, 31(4):331-355.
  2. Boldyreff, C., Nutter, D., and Rank, S. (2002). Active artefact management for distributed software engineering. In Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2002. COMPSAC 2002. Proceedings. 26th Annual International, pages 1081-1086. IEEE.
  3. Bruegge, B., Creighton, O., Helming, J., and Kogel, M. (2008). Unicase-an ecosystem for unified software engineering research tools. In Third IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering.
  4. De Lucia, A., Fasano, F., Oliveto, R., and Tortora, G. (2004). Enhancing an artefact management system with traceability recovery features. In Software Maintenance, 2004. Proceedings. 20th IEEE International Conference on, pages 306 - 315.
  5. Egyed, A. and Grunbacher, P. (2005). Supporting software understanding with automated requirements traceability. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 0(0).
  6. El-Ramly, M., Stroulia, E., and Sorenson, P. (2002). Recovering software requirements from system-user interaction traces. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering, page 454. ACM.
  7. Frost, R. (2007). Jazz and the eclipse way of collaboration. IEEE Software, 24:114-117.
  8. Gotel, O. and Finkelstein, C. (1994). An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In Requirements Engineering, 1994., Proceedings of the First International Conference on, pages 94 -101.
  9. Helming, J., Narayan, N., Arndt, H., Koegel, M., and Maalej, W. (2010). From Informal Project Management Artifacts to Formal System Models. System.
  10. Herrmannsdoerfer, M. and Koegel, M. (2010). Towards a generic operation recorder for model evolution. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice - IWMCP 7810, page 76.
  11. Hong, Y., Kim, M., and Lee, S.-W. (2010). Requirements management tool with evolving traceability for heterogeneous artifacts in the entire life cycle. In Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA), 2010 Eighth ACIS International Conference on, pages 248 -255.
  12. IBM (2011a). IBM - rational DOORS - software.
  13. IBM (2011b). IBM - rational RequisitePro - software.
  14. Jalote, P. (1997). An integrated approach to software engineering. Springer Verlag.
  15. Jiang, H.-y., Nguyen, T. N., Chang, C. K., and Dong, F. (2007). Traceability Link Evolution Management with Incremental Latent Semantic Indexing. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference.
  16. Lee, C., Guadagno, L., and Jia, X. (2003). An Agile Approach to Capturing Requirements and Traceability. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (TEFSE 2003). Citeseer.
  17. Lo, D. and Khoo, S. (2008). Mining patterns and rules for software specification discovery. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 1(2):1609-1616.
  18. Pinheiro, F. and Goguen, J. (1996). An object-oriented tool for tracing requirements. IEEE SOFTWARE, pages 52-64.
  19. Ramesh, B. and Jarke, M. (2001). Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(1):58-93.
  20. Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 12:23-49. 10.1007/s12130-999-1026-0.
  21. UNICASE (2011). Unicase.
  22. C?ubranic, D. and Murphy, G. C. (2003). Hipikat: recommending pertinent software development artifacts. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 7803, pages 408-418, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  23. Winkler, S. and von Pilgrim, J. (2010). A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software and Systems Modeling, 9:529- 565. 10.1007/s10270-009-0145-0.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Narayan N., Li Y., Helming J. and Koegel M. (2011). INTERACTION CENTRIC REQUIREMENTS TRACEABILITY . In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-8425-57-7, pages 232-238. DOI: 10.5220/0003463502320238

in Bibtex Style

author={Nitesh Narayan and Yang Li and Jonas Helming and Maximilian Koegel},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
SN - 978-989-8425-57-7
AU - Narayan N.
AU - Li Y.
AU - Helming J.
AU - Koegel M.
PY - 2011
SP - 232
EP - 238
DO - 10.5220/0003463502320238