![](bg6.png)
study currently processes FEs from the evoked
frame only, and does not make reference to other
related frames (inheritance, uses, used_by,
perspective_on etc.). Secondly, we are not
considering synonyms in our current
implementation. We intend to work on these two
lines in future and improve our solution approach.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have presented an approach to
enrich and refine informal requirements gathered
during early RE with the objective of addressing
incompleteness concern in these requirements. The
presented study is only a preliminary investigation
of the proposed approach. There are challenges with
the proposed approach as frames in FrameNet
lexical database correspond to generic concepts
whereas software requirements pertain to a specific
business domain covering technical aspects. The
preliminary study, however, reveals sufficiently
encouraging observations to further refine the
proposed approach to handle incompleteness
problem in the informal requirements. In future, we
plan to extend our algorithm to other related frames
while invoking a frame for an LU. Secondly, we
need to work with synonyms, and conduct more
rigorous case-studies for validating our proposed
approach. We believe that as FrameNet database is
increasing, our approach will yield in better results
though the same needs to be supported by a number
of case-studies.
REFERENCES
Saavedra, R, Ballejos, L & Ale, M 2015, Quality
Properties Evaluation for Software Requirements
Specifications: An Exploratory Analysis. Proceedings
of WER’13, 16
th
edition of Workshop on Requirements
Engineering, Uruguay.
Firesmith, DG 2003, ‘Specifying Good Requirements’,
Journal of Object Technology, vol 2, no. 4, July-
August 2003, pp. 77-87.
Zowghi, D & Gervasi, V 2002. The Three Cs of
Requirements: Consistency, Completeness, and
Correctness. Proceedings of 8
th
International
Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation
for Software Quality, Germany.
Fabbrini, F, Fusani, M, Gnesi, S & Lami, G 2001. An
Automatic Quality Evaluation for Natural Language
Requirements. Proceedings of 7
th
International
Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation
for Software Quality, Switzerland.
Kuchta, J 2016. Completeness and Consistency of the
System Requirement Specification. Proceedings of
Federated Conference on Computer Science and
Information Systems, pp. 265-269, Poland.
Génova, G, Fuentes, JM, Llorens, J, Hurtado, O &
Moreno, V 2013, ‘A Framework to Measure and
Improve the Quality of Textual Requirements’,
Requirements Engineering, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 25-41.
Bhatia, J, Sharma, R, Biswas, KK & Ghaisas, S 2013,
Using Grammatical Knowledge Patterns for
structuring requirements specifications. Proceedings
of 3
rd
IEEE International Workshop on Requirements
Patterns (RePa’2013), in conjunction with 21st IEEE
International Requirements Engineering Conference
(RE’13), pp. 31-34, July 2013.
Sharma, R 2016, ‘A semi-automated approach to support
logical formalism for Requirements Analysis and
Evolution’ PhD Thesis, School of Information
Technology, IIT Delhi, India.
Atkins, BTS, Klavens, J & Levin, B 1988, ‘Anatomy of a
verb entry: from linguistic theory to lexicographic
practice’, International Journal of Lexicography, vol.
1, no. 2, pp.: 84–126.
Fillmore, CJ, Johnson CR & Petruck, MRL 2003,
‘Background to FrameNet’, International Journal of
Lexicography, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 235–250.
ISO/IEC/IEEE International Standard 2011, Systems and
software engineering -- Life cycle processes --
Requirements engineering. ISO/IEC/IEEE
29148:2011(E), doi:
10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6146379.
Pohl, K 2010, Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals,
Principles, and Techniques, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg.
Firesmith, D 2005. ‘Are Your Requirements Complete?’,
Journal of Object Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27-43.
Durán, A, Bernárdez, B, Ruiz, A & Toro, M 2001. An
XML–based Approach for the Automatic Verification
of Software Requirements Specifications. Proceedings
of 4
th
Workshop on Requirements Engineering, pp.
181-194.
Carson, RS & Shell, T 2001. Requirements completeness:
Absolute or relative? comments on ‘system function
implementation and behavioural modelling[syst eng 4
(2001), 58-75]’, Systems Engineering, vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 230–231.
Boehm, BW 1984. ‘Verifying and validating software
requirements and design specifications’, IEEE
Software, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 75-88.
Davis, AM 1993. Software Requirements: Analysis and
Specification. Prentice Hall, second edition.
Sutcliffe, A & Maiden, N 2002. ‘The domain theory for
requirements engineering’, IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 174-196.
Minsky, M 1981, A Framework for Representing
Knowledge, J. Haugeland, Ed., Mind Design, MIT
Press.
Marshman, E, Morgan, T & Meyer, I 2002, ‘French
patterns for expressing concept relations’,
Terminology, vol. 8, no. 1.
Enriching Frame-based Structured Representations for Requirements using Case Frames - An Approach Towards Handling Incompleteness
in Informal Requirements
319