Software evolution: a requirements engineering approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the issue of software evolution from a Requirements Engineering perspective. This perspective is founded on the premise that software evolution is best managed with reference to the requirements of a given software system. In particular, I follow the Requirements Problem approach to software development: the problem of developing software can be characterized as finding a specification that satisfies user requirements, subject to domain constraints. To enable this, I propose a shift from treating requirements as artifacts to treating requirements as design knowledge, embedded in knowledge bases. Most requirements today, when they exist in tangible form at all, are static objects. Such artifacts are quickly out of date and difficult to update. Instead, I propose that requirements be maintained in a knowledge base which supports knowledge-level operations for asserting new knowledge and updating existing knowledge. Consistency checks and entailment of new specifications is done automatically by answering simple queries. Maintaining a requirements knowledge base in parallel with running code means that changes precipitated by evolution are always addressed relative to the ultimate purpose of the system. This thesis begins with empirical studies which establish the nature of the requirements evolution problem. I use an extended case study of payment cards to motivate the following discussion. I begin at an abstract level, by introducing a requirements engineering knowledge base (REKB) using a functional specification. Since it is functional, the specifics of the implementation are left open. I then describe one implementation, using a reason-maintenance system, and show how this implementation can a) solve static requirements problems; b) help stakeholders bring requirements and implementation following a change in the requirements problem; c) propose paraconsistent reasoning to support inconsistency tolerance in the REKB. The end result of my work on the REKB is a tool and approach which can guide software developers and software maintainers in design and decision-making in the context of software evolution.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".