| 2020 | |
| [1] | , "Extending UML Use Case Diagrams to Represent Non-Interactive Functional Requirements", In e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 97–115, 2020.
DOI: 10.37190/e-Inf200104. Download article (PDF)Get article BibTeX file |
Authors
Saqib Iqbal, Issam Al-Azzoni, Gary Allen, Hikmat Ullah Khan
Abstract
Background: The comprehensive representation of functional requirements is a crucial activity in the analysis phase of the software development life cycle. Representation of a complete set of functional requirements helps in tracing business goals effectively throughout the development life cycle. Use case modelling is one of the most widely-used methods to represent and document functional requirements of the system. Practitioners exploit use case modelling to represent interactive functional requirements of the system while overlooking some of the non-interactive functional requirements. The non-interactive functional requirements are the ones which are performed by the system without an initiation by the user, for instance, notifying something to the user or creating an internal backup.
Aim: This paper addresses the representation of non-interactive requirements along with interactive ones (use cases) in one model. This paper calls such requirements `operation cases’ and proposes a new set of graphical and textual notations to represent them.
Method: The proposed notations have been applied on a case study and have also been empirically evaluated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new notations in capturing non-interactive functional requirements.
Results and Conclusion: The results of the evaluation indicate that the representation of operation cases helps in documenting a complete set of functional requirements, which ultimately results in a comprehensive translation of requirements into design.
Keywords
Use Case modeling UML Requirements Engineering Functional Requirements
References
1. I. Jacobson, “Object-oriented development in an industrial environment,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications , 1987, pp. 183–191.
2. “Unified modeling language,” 2015, [Accessed September 2019]. [Online]. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5
3. J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch, The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual . Addison-Wesley, 1999.
4. B. Anda, K. Hansen, and G. Sand, “An investigation of use case quality in a large safety-critical software development project,” Information and Software Technology , Vol. 51, No. 12, 2009, pp. 1699–1711.
5. S. Tiwari and A. Gupta, “Does increasing formalism in the use case template help?” in Proceedings of the 7th India Software Engineering Conference , 2014, pp. 6:1–6:10.
6. D. Parachuri, A.S.M. Sajeev, and R. Shukla, “An empirical study of structural defects in industrial use-cases,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering , 2014, pp. 14–23.
7. M. Ivarsson and T. Gorschek, “A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations,” Empirical Software Engineering , Vol. 16, No. 3, 2011, pp. 365–395.
8. M. Glinz, “Problems and deficiencies of UML as a requirements specification language,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Specification and Design , 2000, pp. 11–22.
9. G. Génova, J.L. Morillo, P. Metz, R. Prieto-Díaz, and H. Astudillo, “Open issues in industrial use case modeling,” Journal of Object Technology , Vol. 4, No. 6, 2005, pp. 7–14.
10. P. Metz, J. O’Brien, and W. Weber, “Against use case interleaving,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools , 2001, pp. 472–486.
11. P. Metz, J. O’Brien, and W. Weber, “Specifying use case interaction: Clarifying extension points and rejoin points,” Journal of Object Technology , Vol. 3, No. 5, 2004, pp. 87–102.
12. A.J.H. Simons, “Use cases considered harmful,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems , 1999, pp. 194–203.
13. I. Jacobson, M. Christerson, P. Jonsson, and G. Övergaard, Object-oriented software engineering – A use case driven approach . Addison-Wesley, 1992.
14. S. Tiwari and A. Gupta, “A systematic literature review of use case specifications research,” Information and Software Technology , Vol. 67, 2015, pp. 128–158.
15. S. Tiwari and A. Gupta, “Investigating comprehension and learnability aspects of use cases for software specification problems,” Information and Software Technology , Vol. 91, 2017, pp. 22–43.
16. M. Misbhauddin and M. Alshayeb, “Extending the UML use case metamodel with behavioral information to facilitate model analysis and interchange,” Software and Systems Modeling , Vol. 14, No. 2, 2015, pp. 813–838.
17. S. Azevedo, R.J. Machado, A. Bragança, and H. Ribeiro, “The UML ≪include ≫ relationship and the functional refinement of use cases,” in Proceedings of the EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications , 2010, pp. 156–163.
18. E.F. Cruz, R.J. Machado, and M.Y. Santos, “On the decomposition of use cases for the refinement of software requirements,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications , 2014, pp. 237–240.
19. K. van den Berg and A.J.H. Simons, “Control-flow semantics of use cases in UML,” Information and Software Technology , Vol. 41, No. 10, 1999, pp. 651–659.
20. R.R. Hurlbut, “A survey of approaches for describing and formalizing use cases,” Department of Computer Science, Illinois Institute of Technology, Tech. Rep., 1997.
21. P. Metz, J. O’Brien, and W. Weber, “Specifying use case interaction: Types of alternative courses,” Journal of Object Technology , Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, pp. 111–131.
22. P. Stevens, “On use cases and their relationships in the unified modelling language,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering , 2001, pp. 140–155.
23. D. Savic, A.R. da Silva, S. Vlajic, S. Lazarevic, V. Stanojevic, I. Antovic, and M. Milic, “Use case specification at different levels of abstraction,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology , 2012, pp. 187–192.
24. A. Al-alshuhai and F. Siewe, “An extension of the use case diagram to model context-aware applications,” in Proceedings of the SAI Intelligent Systems Conference , 2015, pp. 884–888.
25. M. El-Attar and J. Miller, “Constructing high quality use case models: a systematic review of current practices,” Requirements Engineering , Vol. 17, No. 3, 2012, pp. 187–201.
26. T. Yue, L.C. Briand, and Y. Labiche, “aToucan: an automated framework to derive UML analysis models from use case models,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , Vol. 24, No. 3, 2015, pp. 13:1–13:52.
27. C. Wang, F. Pastore, A. Goknil, L.C. Briand, and M.Z.Z. Iqbal, “Automatic generation of system test cases from use case specifications,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis , 2015, pp. 385–396.
28. T. Yue, L.C. Briand, and Y. Labiche, “Facilitating the transition from use case models to analysis models: Approach and experiments,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , Vol. 22, No. 1, 2013, pp. 5:1–5:38.
29. N. Kesserwan, R. Dssouli, J. Bentahar, B. Stepien, and P. Labrèche, “From use case maps to executable test procedures: a scenario-based approach,” Software and Systems Modeling , 2017.
30. S. Adolph, A. Cockburn, and P. Bramble, Patterns for Effective Use Cases . Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., 2002.
31. M. Smialek and W. Nowakowski, From Requirements to Java in a Snap – Model-Driven Requirements Engineering in Practice . Springer, 2015.
32. K. Qi and B.W. Boehm, “A light-weight incremental effort estimation model for use case driven projects,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Software Technology Conference , 2017.
33. M. Saroha and S. Sahu, “Tools and methods for software effort estimation using use case points model – A review,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation , 2015, pp. 874–879.
34. M. Grossman, J.E. Aronson, and R.V. McCarthy, “Does UML make the grade? insights from the software development community,” Information and Software Technology , Vol. 47, No. 6, 2005, pp. 383–397.
35. D. Kulak and E. Guiney, Use Cases: Requirements in Context . ACM Press, 2000.
36. D. Liu, K. Subramaniam, B. Far, and A. Eberlein, “Automating transition from use cases to class model,” in Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Toward a Caring and Humane Technology , 2003, pp. 831–834.
37. P. Kruchten, The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction , 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley, 2003.
38. S.S. Somé, “Supporting use case based requirements engineering,” Information and Software Technology , Vol. 48, No. 1, 2006, pp. 43–58.
39. J. Kettenis, “Getting started with use case modeling: White paper,” Oracle Corporation, Tech. Rep., 2007.
40. “40 use case templates and examples,” [Accessed September 2019]. [Online]. http://templatelab.com/use-case-templates/
41. B. Anda and D.I.K. Sjøberg, “Investigating the role of use cases in the construction of class diagrams,” Empirical Software Engineering , Vol. 10, No. 3, 2005, pp. 285–309.
42. D. Beimel and E. Kedmi-Shahar, “Improving the identification of functional system requirements when novice analysts create use case diagrams: the benefits of applying conceptual mental models,” Requirements Engineering , 2018.
43. F. Ricca, G. Scanniello, M. Torchiano, G. Reggio, and E. Astesiano, “Assessing the effect of screen mockups on the comprehension of functional requirements,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , Vol. 24, No. 1, 2014.
44. M. Dahan, P. Shoval, and A. Sturm, “Comparing the impact of the OO-DFD and the use case methods for modeling functional requirements on comprehension and quality of models: a controlled experiment,” Requirements Engineering , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2014, pp. 27–43.
45. D.C. Montgomery and G.C. Runger, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 6th Edition . John Wiley and Sons, 2013.
46. “XLSTAT,” [Accessed March 2019]. [Online]. https://www.xlstat.com/en/
47. N. Fenton and J. Bieman, Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach , 3rd ed. CRC Press, Inc., 2014.
48. C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Hst, M.C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wessln, Experimentation in Software Engineering . Springer Publishing Company, 2012.
49. M. Höst, B. Regnell, and C. Wohlin, “Using students as subjects-a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment,” Empirical Software Engineering , Vol. 5, No. 3, 2000, pp. 201–214.