Assessing the quality of use case descriptions

Software Quality Journal

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 69-97

  Phalp, Keith Thomas ^a   Vincent, Jonathan ^a   Cox, Karl ^b  

^a BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

Requirements; Specification; Text comprehension; Use case; Use case description; Validation

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

CASE DESCRIPTION; DISCOURSE PROCESSING; EMPIRICAL VALIDATION; INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY; REQUIREMENTS; TEXT COMPREHENSIONS; VALIDATION; WRITTEN DESCRIPTION;

SPECIFICATIONS;

EID: 33846799470     PISSN: 09639314     EISSN: 15731367     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11219-006-9006-z     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Achour, C., Rolland, C., Maiden, N., Souveyet, C. 1999. Guiding use case authouring: Results from an empirical study. In: 4th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Limerick, 7-11 June 1999. Version taken from: http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/CREWS/reports.htm, updated August 1999. Report Series 98-31.
2. Adolph, S., Bramble, P., Cockbum, A., Pols, A. 2003. Patterns for Effective Use Cases. Addison Wesley.
3. Alexander, I. 2002. On abstraction in scenarios. Requirements Engineering Journal 6:252-255.
4. Alexander, I. 2003. Misuse cases: Use cases with hostile intent. IEEE Software Jan/Feb:58-66.
5. Anda, B., Sjoberg, D., Jorgensen, M. 2001. Quality and understanding of use case models. In: Lindskov Knudsen, J. (ed.) 15th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Budapest, June 18-22 2001, Berlin, LNCS, Springer-Verlag, pp. 402-428.
6. Anda, B., Sjoberg, D. 2005. Investigating the role of use cases in the construction of class diagrams. Empirical Software Engineering Journal 10(3):285-309.
7. Arlow, J. 1998. Use cases, UML visual modelling and the trivialisation of business requirements. Requirements Engineering Journal 3:150-152.
8. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. 1999. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
9. Bransford, J., Barclay, J., Franks, J. 1972. Sentence memory: a constructive versus interpretative approach. Cognitive Psychology 3:193-209.
10. Bray, I. 2002. An Introduction to Requirements Engineering. Harlow, Addison-Welsey.
11. Budgen, D. 1994. Software Design. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
12. Carroll, J. 2000. Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers 13:43-60.
13. Clark, H. 1997. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes 23(3):567-598.
14. Cockburn, A. 2001. Writing Effective Use Cases. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
15. Cox, K. 2000. Fitting scenarios to the requirements process. 2nd International Workshop on the Requirements Engineering Process: Innovative Techniques, Models, Tools to support the RE Process, London, 6-8 September 2000. In: Tjoa, A. Wagner, R. and Al-Zobaidie, A. (eds.), Proceedings of DEXA'2000, 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Los Alamitos, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 995-999.
16. Cox, K. 2002. Heuristics for Use Case Descriptions. PhD Thesis, Bournemouth University.
17. Cox, K., Phalp, K. 2000. Replicating the CREWS use case authoring experiment. Empirical Software Engineering Journal 5(3):245-268.
18. Cox, K., Phalp, K., Shepperd, M. 2001. Comparing use case writing guidelines. In: Achour-Salinesi, C., Opdahl, A., Pohl, K., Rossi, M. (eds.), 7th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Interlaken, Switzerland, 4-5 June 2001 Essen, Essener Informatik Beitrage, pp. 101-112.
19. Cox, K., Auram, A., Jeffery, R. 2004. An experiment in inspecting the quality of use case descriptions. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology 36(4):211-229.
20. Davis, A. 1991. Software Requirements Analysis and Specification. Hemel Hempstead, Prentice Hall.
21. Davis, A., Hickey, A. 2002. Requirements researchers: do we practice what we preach? Requirements Engineering Journal 7:107-111.
22. Fletcher, C., van den Broek, P., Arthur, E. 1996. A model of narrative comprehension and recall. In: Britton B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 141-163.
23. Fowler, M., Scott, K. 2000. UML Distilled 2nd Edition. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
24. Gamham, A., Oakhill, J. 1996. The mental models theory language of comprehension. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 313-339.
25. Galliers, R., Land, F. 1987. Choosing appropriate information systems research methodologies. Communications of the ACM 30(11):900-902.
26. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J. 1996. The mental models theory language of comprehension. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 313-339.
27. Gause, D., Weinberg, G. 1989. Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design. Dorset House Publishing, New York.
28. Gernsbacher, M. 1996. The structure-building framework: What it is, what it might also be and why. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 289-311.
29. Gernsbacher, M. 1997. Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes 23(3):265-304.
30. Goldman, S., Varma, S., Cote, N. 1996. Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: toward 'smarter' and flexible models of text comprehension. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 73-113.
31. Goldman, S., Graesser, A., van den Broek, P. 1999. Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso. In: Goldman, S., Graesser, A., van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative Comprehension, Causality and Coherence: Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-10.
32. Graesser, A., Britton, B. 1996. Five metaphors for text understanding. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 341-351.
33. Graesser, A., Swamer, S., Baggett, W., Sell, M. 1996. New models of deep comprehension. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-32.
34. Graham, I. 1998. Requirements Engineering and Rapid Development. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
35. Halliday, M., Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. Harlow, Longman Group.
36. Ham, G. 1998. Four roads to use case discovery - there is a use (and a case) for each one. CrossTalk, December 1998. Version taken from: www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/1998 in Nov 2005.
37. Hsia, P., Yaung, A. 1988. Screen-based scenario generator: a tool for scenario-based prototyping. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Conference on System Science, Hawaii, 4-7 January 1998 IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 455-461.
38. Insfran, E., Pastor, O., Wieringa, R. 2002. Requirements engineering-based conceptual modelling. Requirements Engineering Journal 7(2):61-72.
39. Jackson, M. 1995. Software Requirements and Specifications: A Lexicon on Principles, Prejudice and Practice. Wokingham, Addison-Wesley
40. Jackson, M. 1998. A discipline of description. Requirements Engineering Journal 3:73-78.
41. Jackson, M. 2001. Problem Frames. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
42. Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., Overgaard, G. 1992. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Wokingham, Addison-Wesley.
43. Jarke, M., Tung Bui, X., Carroll, J. 1998. Scenario management: An interdisciplinary approach. Requirements Engineering Journal 3(3/4):155-173.
44. Jorgensen, J.B., Lassen, B. 2005. Aligning Work Processes and the Advisor Portal Bank System, 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Business Need and IT Alignment, (REBNITA 2005), 13th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2005, Paris, 29 Aug-2 Sep, 2005.
45. Kaakinen, J., Hyona, J., Keenan, J. 2002. Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes 33(2):159-173.
46. Kaindl, H. 1998. Combining goals and functional requirements in a scenario-based design process. In: Johnson, H., Nigay, L., Roast, C., (eds.), People and Computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI'98, Sheffield, September, London, Springer-Verlag, pp. 101-121.
47. Kanyaru, J., Phalp, K. 2005a. Supporting the consideration of dependencies in use case specifications. In: 11th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation For Software Quality - REFSQ05, Porto, Portugal, 13-14 June 2005.
48. Kanyaru, J., Phalp, K. 2005b. Requirements validation with enactable models of state-based use cases, Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2005, Keele University, 11-13 April 2005.
49. Kanyaru, J., Phalp, K. 2005c. Aligning Business Process Models with Specifications using Enactable Use Case Tools, 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Business Need and IT Alignment, (REBNITA 2005), 13th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2005, Paris, 29 Aug-2 Sep, 2005.
50. Korn, J. 2000. Scenarios through linguistic modelling. In: IEE Seminar on Scenarios in the System Lifecycle (Ref 00/138), London, 7 December 2000, IEE, pp. 3/1-3/7.
51. Kovitz, B. 1999. Practical Software Requirements: A Manual of Content and Style. Manning Publications, Greenwich, CT.
52. Kulak, D., Guiney, E. 2000. Use Cases - Requirements in Context. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
53. Leibundgut, R. 2002. Use Cases in the Project Lifecycle, Presented at Requirements Engineering Specialist Group of the British Computer Society Workshop: Scenarios Work! Improving Requirements Engineering with Use Cases and Scenarios, July 10th 2002, UC London, available from: http://mcs.open.ac.uk/ computing/resg2/documents/Lei.bundgut.pdf.
54. Liang, Y. 2003. From use cases to classes: A way of building object model with UML. Information and Software Technology 45(2):83-93.
55. Magliano, J. 1999. Revealing inference processes during text comprehension. In: Goldman, S., Graesser, A., van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative Comprehension, Causality and Coherence: Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 55-75.
56. Mannes, S., St George, M. 1996. Effects of prior knowledge on text comprehension: a simple modelling approach. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 115-139.
57. Mattingly, L., Rao, H. 1998. Writing effective use cases and introducing collaboration cases. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming October:77- 87.
58. McNamara, D., Kintsch, W. 1996. Learning from texts: effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22:247-288.
59. Object Management Group (OMG) 2001. Unified Modeling Language v1.4 - Semantics. Document 01-09-73. Version taken from: http://www.omg.org/pub/docs/ formal/01-09-73.pdf, taken Jan 2002.
60. O'Brien, E., Myers, J. 1999. Text comprehension: a view from the bottom up. In: Goldman, S., Graesser, A., van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative Comprehension, Causality and Coherence: Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 35-53
61. Ozyurek, A., Trabasso, T. 1997. Evaluation during understanding of narratives. Discourse Processes 23:305-335.
62. Perfetti, C. 1997. Sentences, individual differences and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes 23:337-355
63. Phalp, K., Cox, K. 2002. Supporting communicability with use case guidelines: An empirical study. In: 6th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering, Keele. Keele University, 8-10 April 2002.
64. Phalp, K.T., Cox, K. 2003a. Using Enactable Models to Enhance Use Case Descriptions, ProSim'03, International Workshop on Software Process Simulation Modelling (in conjunction with ICSE 2003), Portland, USA, May 3-4 2003.
65. Phalp, K.T., Cox, K. 2003b. Exploiting use case descriptions for specification and design. In: 7th International Conference on Empirical Assessment and Evaluation in Software Engineering (EASE 2003), Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, April 8-10th, 2003.
66. Pohl, K., Brandenburg, M., Gulich, A. 2001. Integrating requirements and architecture information: a scenario and meta-model based approach. In: Achour-Salinesi, C., Opdahl, A., Pohl, K., Rossi, M. (eds.), 7th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Interlaken, Switzerland, 4-5 June 2001 Essen, Essener Informatik Beitrage, pp. 68-84.
67. Pooley, R., Stevens, P. 1999. Using UML - Software Engineering with Objects and Components. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
68. Potts, C. 1993. Software engineering research revisited. IEEE Software September: 19-28.
69. Ratcliffe, M., Budgen, D. 2001. The application of use case descriptions in system design specification. Information and Software Technology 43(6):365-386.
70. Ratcliffe, M., Budgen, D. 2005. The application of use cases in systems analysis and design specification. Information and Software Technology 47(9):623-641.
71. Regnell, B., Davidson, A. 1997. From requirements to design with use cases - experiences from industrial pilot projects. In: Dubois, E., Opdahl, A., Pohl, K. (eds.), 3rd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Barcelona, 16-17 June 1997, Namur University Press.
72. Regnell, B., Kimber, K., Wesslen, A. 1995. Improving the use case driven approach to requirements engineering. In: 2nd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, York, March 1995 Los Alamitos, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 40-47.
73. Robertson, S. 1995. Generating object-oriented design representations via scenario queries. In: Carroll, J. (ed.). Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development, Chichester, Wiley, pp. 279-308.
74. Robertson, S. 2001. Are we afraid of the dark? IEEE Software July/August: 12-15.
75. Rosenberg, D., Scott, K. 1999. Use Case Driven Object Modelling with UML: A Practical Approach. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
76. Rosenberg, D., Scott, K. 2001. Applying Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML. An Annotated E-Commerce Example. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
77. Schneider, G., Winters, J. 1998. Applying Use Cases: A Practical Guide. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
78. Somé, S. 2005. Supporting use case based requirements engineering, Information and Software Technology (accepted - now available online Articles in Press).
79. Trabasso, T., Van Den Broek, P., Suh, S. 1989. Logical necessity and transitivity in causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes 12:1-25.
80. Traxler, M., Gernsbacher, M. 1995. Improving coherence in written communication. In: Gernsbacher, M., Givon, T. (eds.), Coherence in Spontaneous Text, Philadelphia. John Benjamins, pp. 215-237.
81. Turner, A., Britton, B., Andreaessen, P., McCutchen, D. 1996. A predication semantics model of text comprehension and recall. In: Britton, B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33-71.
82. van den broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C., Thurlow, T. 1996. A 'landscape' view of reading: fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In: Britton B., Graesser, A. (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 165-187.
83. Wason, P., Reich, S. 1979. A verbal illusion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 31:591-597.
84. Wieringa, R. 2001. Software requirements engineering: the need for systems engineering and literacy. Requirements Engineering Journal 6:132-134.
85. Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Edition. London, Sage Publications.
86. Zuber-Skerritt, O. editor, 1996. New Directions in Action Research. London, Falmer Press.