MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155511907

From Early Requirements Modeled by the i* Technique to Later Requirements Modeled in Precise UML

2000· article· en· W2155511907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWER · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRequirements analysisSoftware requirements specificationSystem requirements specificationUnified Modeling LanguageNon-functional requirementRequirements elicitationRequirementRequirements engineeringFunctional requirementRequirements managementBusiness requirementsSoftware engineeringConsistency (knowledge bases)Systems engineeringSoftware developmentBusiness processSoftwareProgramming languageSoftware designEngineeringArtificial intelligenceWork in process
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Requirements capture has been acknowledged as a critical phase of software development, precisely because it is the phase which deals not only with technical knowledge, but also with organizational, managerial, economic and social issues. The emerging consensus is that a requirement specification should include not only software specifications but also business models and other kinds of information describing the context in which the intended system will function. Unfortunately, the current dominant object oriented modeling technique, i.e. Unified Modeling Technique, is ill equipped for capturing early requirements which are typically informal and often focus on organisational objectives. UML is more suitable for later phases of requirements capture, which usually focus on completeness, consistency, and automated verification of functional requirements for the new system. In this paper, we present some guidelines for the integration of early and late requirements specifications. For the organizational modeling we use the i* technique, which focuses on the de- scription of organizational relationships among various organizational actors, as well as an understanding of the rationale for the alternatives chosen. For the functional requirements specification, we rely on the precise Unified Mod- eling Language (pUML), annotated with constraints described in OCL. A small CD store example is used to illustrate how the requirements process it- erates between the early and late requirements specification.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it