Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Downloads 3
Views 31

Total impact ?

    Send a

    Ana has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0

     

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Ana Fernández Vilas Trusted member

    Associate Professor

    University of VIfo

    Composing requirements specifications from multiple prioritized sources

    Export to Mendeley

    The formal methodology MultiSpec supports the evolution of software specifications gathered from multiple perspectives. A viewpoint-based approach is used to explicitly separate the descriptions provided by different stakeholders, and concentrate on identifying and resolving conflicts between them. The challenge addressed in this article consists in taking into account that some views may have greater degrees of relevance and, consequently, their opinion will have more importance when either obtaining the merged model or resolving the contradictions. To this end, we propose a priority-based approach, where such priority value is twofold. On the one hand, it considers external factors to the perspectives such as the importance assigned to each view by the analyst depending on who is specifying the view or the amount of stakeholders involved in that specification. On the other hand, this priority value also considers internal factors related to the quality of the views and, in order to be able to quantify this value, Mul- tiSpec proposes two measures: coverage and density of each perspective which will be combined in a completeness value. The contributions of this approach will be clearly illustrated through a simple example.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : Composing requirements specifications from multiple prioritized sources
    Author(s) : Ana Belén Barragáns Martínez, José J. Pazos Arias, Ana Fernández Vilas, Jorge García Duque, Martín López Nores, Rebeca P. Díaz Redondo, Yolanda Blanco Fernández
    Abstract : The formal methodology MultiSpec supports the evolution of software specifications gathered from multiple perspectives. A viewpoint-based approach is used to explicitly separate the descriptions provided by different stakeholders, and concentrate on identifying and resolving conflicts between them. The challenge addressed in this article consists in taking into account that some views may have greater degrees of relevance and, consequently, their opinion will have more importance when either obtaining the merged model or resolving the contradictions. To this end, we propose a priority-based approach, where such priority value is twofold. On the one hand, it considers external factors to the perspectives such as the importance assigned to each view by the analyst depending on who is specifying the view or the amount of stakeholders involved in that specification. On the other hand, this priority value also considers internal factors related to the quality of the views and, in order to be able to quantify this value, Mul- tiSpec proposes two measures: coverage and density of each perspective which will be combined in a completeness value. The contributions of this approach will be clearly illustrated through a simple example.
    Keywords : inconsistency á, requirements specification á prioritization, viewpoints á incompleteness á

    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Other
    Language : English
    Year : 2008

    Affiliations University of VIfo
    Journal : Requirements Engineering
    Volume : 13
    Issue : 3
    Publisher : Springer London
    Pages : 187 - 206
    Url : http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00766-008-0064-6
    Doi : 10.1007/s00766-008-0064-6

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Ana's Peer Evaluation activity

    Downloads 3
    Views 31

    Ana has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.