Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How Do Practitioners Interpret Conditionals in Requirements?
Qualicen GmbH, DEU.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3995-6125
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0619-6027
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4118-0952
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science / [ed] Ardito L., Jedlitschka A., Morisio M., Torchiano M., Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH , 2021, Vol. 13126, p. 85-102Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Context: Conditional statements like “If A and B then C” are core elements for describing software requirements. However, there are many ways to express such conditionals in natural language and also many ways how they can be interpreted. We hypothesize that conditional statements in requirements are a source of ambiguity, potentially affecting downstream activities such as test case generation negatively. Objective: Our goal is to understand how specific conditionals are interpreted by readers who work with requirements. Method: We conduct a descriptive survey with 104 RE practitioners and ask how they interpret 12 different conditional clauses. We map their interpretations to logical formulas written in Propositional (Temporal) Logic and discuss the implications. Results: The conditionals in our tested requirements were interpreted ambiguously. We found that practitioners disagree on whether an antecedent is only sufficient or also necessary for the consequent. Interestingly, the disagreement persists even when the system behavior is known to the practitioners. We also found that certain cue phrases are associated with specific interpretations. Conclusion: Conditionals in requirements are a source of ambiguity and there is not just one way to interpret them formally. This affects any analysis that builds upon formalized requirements (e.g., inconsistency checking, test-case generation). Our results may also influence guidelines for writing requirements. © 2021, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH , 2021. Vol. 13126, p. 85-102
Series
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ISSN 03029743, E-ISSN 16113349 ; 13126
Keywords [en]
Descriptive survey, Formalization, Logical interpretation, Requirements engineering, C (programming language), Surveys, Core elements, Down-stream, Formalisation, Logical formulas, Natural languages, Requirement engineering, Software requirements, Test case generation
National Category
Computer Sciences Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-22551DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-91452-3_6ISI: 000765223700006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85121659573ISBN: 9783030914516 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-22551DiVA, id: diva2:1626434
Conference
22nd International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, PROFES 2021, Virtual, Online26 November 2021 through 26 November 2021
Note

open access

Available from: 2022-01-11 Created: 2022-01-11 Last updated: 2022-05-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopusarXiv.org

Authority records

Frattini, JulianMendez, DanielUnterkalmsteiner, Michael

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Frattini, JulianMendez, DanielUnterkalmsteiner, Michael
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
Computer SciencesSoftware Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 71 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf