Desiree - a Refinement Calculus for Requirements Engineering

TL;DR

Desiree is a systematic refinement calculus with operators, ontology, language, and tool support designed to transform stakeholder requirements into formal, consistent, and complete specifications, improving requirements engineering effectiveness.

Contribution

It introduces a comprehensive framework combining a refinement calculus, ontology, language, and systematic method, validated through empirical evaluations for requirements engineering.

Findings

Ontology effectively classifies requirements

Language facilitates rewriting requirements clearly

Framework improves requirements engineering effectiveness

Abstract

The requirements elicited from stakeholders suffer from various afflictions, including informality, incompleteness, ambiguity, vagueness, inconsistencies, and more. It is the task of requirements engineering (RE) processes to derive from these an eligible (formal, complete enough, unambiguous, consistent, measurable, satisfiable, modifiable and traceable) requirements specification that truly captures stakeholder needs. We propose Desiree, a refinement calculus for systematically transforming stakeholder require-ments into an eligible specification. The core of the calculus is a rich set of requirements operators that iteratively transform stakeholder requirements by strengthening or weakening them, thereby reducing incompleteness, removing ambiguities and vagueness, eliminating unattainability and conflicts, turning them into an eligible specification. The framework also includes an ontology for modeling and classifying requirements, a description-based language for representing requirements, as well as a systematic method for applying the concepts and operators. In addition, we define the semantics of the requirements concepts and operators, and develop a graphical modeling tool in support of the entire framework. To evaluate our proposal, we have conducted a series of empirical evaluations, including an ontology evaluation by classifying a large public requirements set, a language evaluation by rewriting the large set of requirements using our description-based syntax, a method evaluation through a realistic case study, and an evaluation of the entire framework through three controlled experiments. The results of our evaluations show that our ontology, language, and method are adequate in capturing requirements in practice, and offer strong evidence that with sufficient training, our framework indeed helps people conduct more effective requirements engineering.