Оценка качества требований к программному обеспечению с применением метода GQM и инструментов обработки естественного языка

Требования к программному обеспечению достаточно трудно объективно измерить по критериям качества без вовлечения в процесс оценки непосредственно самих заинтересованных сторон. Оценка качества документов спецификации требований в автоматическом режиме может существенно сократить расходы бюджета проекта и также предотвращает появление скрытых дефектов в программном обеспечении на более поздних этапах разработки. Качество требований может быть оценено, основываясь на широком разнообразии атрибутов качества, но значение каждого такого атрибута достаточно расплывчато и не имеет строгой привязки к какой-либо измеримой метрике. Использование метода GQM (Goal-Question-Metric) в процессе построения модели оценки может помочь выявить наиболее важные критерии качества и установить связь между атрибутами и конкретными метриками, которые могут быть собраны и вычислены автоматически. Текст требований к программному обеспечению, написанный на естественном языке, может быть проанализирован при помощи инструментов NLP (Natural Language Processing) с целью выявления наиболее слабых слов и фраз, которые делают предложения неоднозначными и двусмысленными. Метрики для таких критериев качества как неоднозначность, единственность, субъективность, полнота и удобочитаемость предложены в данной работе. Описанная модель оценки качества была реализована при помощи сторонних инструментов с открытым исходным кодом для требований, написанных на русском языке. 

1. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 International Standard – Systems and software engineering – Life cycle processes – Requirements engineering.

2. R. Abbot. Program design by informal English descriptions. Communications of the ACM, vol. 26, no. 11, 1983, pp. 882-894.

3. H. Femmer et al. Rapid requirements checks with requirements smells: Two case studies. In Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering, 2014, pp. 10-19.

4. Y. Pisan. Extending requirement specifications using analogy. In Proc. of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, 2000, pp. 70–76.

5. F. Fabbrini et al. The linguistic approach to the natural language requirements quality: Benefit of the use of an automatic tool. In Proc. of the 26th Annual NASA Goddard Software Engineering Workshop, 2001, pp. 97–105.

6. N. Power. Variety and quality in requirements documentation. In Proc. of the 7th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, 2001, pp. 165–170.

7. S.J. Körner, M. Landhäußer, and W. F. Tichy. Transferring research into the real world: How to improve RE with AI in the automotive industry. In Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Requirements Engineering, 2014, pp. 13-18.

8. K. Verma and A. Kass. Requirements analysis tool: A tool for automatically analyzing software requirements documents. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5318, 2008, pp. 751–763.

9. L. Goldin and D.M. Berry. Abstfinder, a prototype abstraction finder for natural language text for use in requirements elicitation: design, methodology, and evaluation. In Proc. of the First International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 1994, 18-22.

10. B.S. Lee and B.R. Bryant. 2004. Automation of software system development using natural language processing and two-level grammar. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2941, 2002, pp. 219-233.

11. H. Yang et al. Automatic detection of nocuous coordination ambiguities in natural language requirements. In Proc. of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2010, pp. 53-62.

12. E. Kamsties, D. Berry, and B. Paech. Detecting ambiguities in requirements documents using inspections. In Proc. of the First Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering (WISE'01), 2001, pp. 68-80.

13. L. Mich and R. Garigliano. Ambiguity measures in requirement engineering. In Proc. of International Conference on Sftware – Theory and Practice (ICS2000), 2000, pp. 39-48.

14. N. Kiyavitskaya et al. Requirements for tools for ambiguity identification and measurement in natural language requirements specifications. Requirements Engineering Journal, vol. 13, 2008, pp. 207-240.

15. A. Davis et al. Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In Proc. of the 1st International Software Metrics Symposium, 1993, pp. 141–152.

16. W. Wilson, L. Rosenberg, and L. Hyatt. Automated analysis of requirement specifications. In Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1997, pp. 161–171.

17. V. Ambriola and V. Gervasi. Processing natural language requirements. In Proc. of the 12th international conference on Automated software engineering, 1997, 36-45.

18. Basili, Victor; Gianluigi Caldiera; H. Dieter Rombach. The Goal Question Metric Approach, NASA GSFC Software Engineering Laboratory, 1994.

19. Rini Van Solingen, Egon Berghout. The Goal/Question/Metric Method: A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development. McGraw-Hill Education, 1998, 280 p.

20. Gonzalo Génova et al. A framework to measure and improve the quality of textual requirements. Requirements Engineering, vol. 18, 2013, pp. 25-41.

21. K.I. Gaydamaka. Characteristics and quality indicators of requirements for the Russian-speaking engineering environment. In Proc. of the Conference «Technologies for the development of information systems», TRIS-2017, 2017, pp. 80-85 (in Russian) / К.И. Гайдамака. Характеристики и индикаторы качества требований для русскоязычной инженерной среды. Труды конференции «Технологии разработки информационных систем», ТРИС-2017, 2017, стр. 80-85.

22. V.K. Batovrin, K.I. Gaydamaka. Some special aspects of assessing the characteristics of system requirements. Informatization and communication, no. 4, 2017, pp. 191-196 (in Russian) / В.К. Батоврин. К.И. Гайдамака. Некоторые особенности оценки характеристик требований к системам. Информатизация и связь, no. 4, 2017, pp. 191–196.

23. J.P. Kincaid et al. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis, 1975.

24. Meri Coleman and T.L. Liau. A computer readability formula designed for ma-chine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, 1975, pp. 283–284.

25. G. Harry McLaughlin. SMOG Grading – a New Readability Formula (PDF). Journal of Reading, vol. 12, no. 8, 1969, pp. 639–646.

26. Anderson Rossanez. Semi-Automatic Checklist-Based Quality Assessment of Natural Language Requirements. Master Thesis, University of Campinas, Brazil, 2017, 96 p.

27. Daniel Jurafsky & James H. Martin. Speech and Language Processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Prentice Hall, 2000, 934 p.

28. D. Jurafsky and J. H. Martin. Speech and Language Processing. Prentice Hall, 2008, 1032 p.

29. K. Toutanova et al. Feature-Rich Part-of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network. In Proc. of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT), 2003, pp. 173-180.

30. M. Porter. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems, vol. 14, no. 3, 1980, pp. 130-137

31. ru-wordnet. GitHub repository, 2017. Available at: https://github.com/jamsic/ru-wor. Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.

32. Y. Baburov. spacy-ru. GitHub repository, 2018. Available at: https://github.com/buriy/spacy-ru. Accessed 20 Nov. 2019

33. Pubs.opengroup.org. ArchiMate 3.1 Specification. Available at: https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate3-doc/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.