Reasoning About Inconsistencies in Natural Language Requirements - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 23
About This Presentation
Title:

Reasoning About Inconsistencies in Natural Language Requirements

Description:

THE BRANCH CONCERNED WITH REAL WORLD GOALS. RELATION BETWEEN SPECIFICATIONS ... DEFEASIBLE. DISCARDED. BELIEF REVISION: COMPETENCE THEORY. PERFORMANCE THEORY ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:25
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 24
Provided by: Roh31
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Reasoning About Inconsistencies in Natural Language Requirements


1
Reasoning About Inconsistencies in Natural
Language Requirements
  • -VIVCENZO GERVASI
  • -DIDAR ZOWGHI

  • BY

  • - ROHINI RAYI(2416209)

2
OUT LINE
  • INTRODUCTION
  • STRONG POINTS AND CONCENTRATION OF THE PAPER
  • MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF PAPER
  • CARLTOOL
  • BRINGING LOGIC TO USER
  • DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON
  • CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE ADVANCEMENTS

3
SOFTWARE LIFE-CYCLE
  • SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATIONS
  • DESIGN
  • IMPLEMENTATION
  • INTEGRATION TESTING
  • OPERATION MAINTENANCE

4
REQUIREMENT ENGINEERING???
  • THE BRANCH CONCERNED WITH REAL WORLD GOALS
  • RELATION BETWEEN SPECIFICATIONS AND SYSTEM
    BEHAVIOR

5
CAUSES OF SYSTEM FAILURE
  • POOR REQUIREMENT MANAGEMENT
  • INCORRECT SPECIFICATIONS
  • INEFFECTIVE REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT

6
INCONSISTENCY
  • MAIN CLASS OF DEFECT
  • WHY IT OCCURS?
  • CONFLICTING GOALS
  • UNCOORDINATED CHANGES INTRODUCED

7
WAYS TO RESOLVE INCONSISTENCY
  • TREAT IT AS AN ERROR
  • USEFUL REASONING
  • TYPES OF INCONSISTENCIES
  • EXPLICIT
  • IMPLICIT

8
STRONG POINTS AND CONCENTRATION OF THE PAPER
9
LOGICAL CONTRADICTION
  • FACT AND ITS NEGATION FROM THE SAME SPECIFICATION
  • CAUSES
  • INFEASIBLE REQUIREMENTS
  • DISAGREEMENT AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
  • RECENT REQUIREMENTS CONFLICTING WITH PREVIOUS

10
PROPOSITION LOGIC
  • SIMPLEST FORM
  • EXPRESSIVE POWER LIMITED
  • BEST FOR LARGE SET PROBLEMS
  • SOUND AND COMPLETE
  • GUARANTEED TO TERMINATE

11
NATURAL LANGUAGE???
  • DISADVANTAGES
  • LACKS FORMAL SEMANTICS
  • MORE AMBIQUITY
  • ADVANTAGES
  • 95 OF REQ. DOCUMENTS
  • ENCOURAGES EXPRESSION AND EXPERIMENTATION

12
MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
13
ARTICLE PRESENTS
  • A formal framework for identifying, analyzing,
    and managing inconsistency in requirements
    specifications
  • A parsing technique and a translation schema
  • A prototype tool, called CARL

14
OVER VIEW
15
FORMAL MODEL DRAWS ITS RESULTS FROM
  • DEFAULT REASONING
  • FIRM
  • DEFEASIBLE
  • DISCARDED
  • BELIEF REVISION
  • COMPETENCE THEORY
  • PERFORMANCE THEORY

16
THEORIST FRAMEWORKMODEL
  • SPECIFICATION
  • FACTS
  • HYPOTHESES
  • CONSTRAINTS

17
EVALUATION
  • REVISION
  • CONTRACTION

18
CARL TOOL
  • MAINTAINS
  • RELATIONAL DATABASE
  • A SET OF BOUNDED-DEPTH, IN-MEMORY TREES

19
PARSING PROCESS
  • PREPROCESSING STAGE
  • TOKENIZATION
  • MORPHOSYSNTACTIC ANALYSIS
  • TYPOGRAPHICAL ADJUSTMENTS
  • APPLYING FUZZY PARSING RULES
  • BACKTRACKING
  • HEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION STRATERIES
  • TRANSLATION INTO LOGICAL FORMULAE

20
DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON
21
PROBLEMS SOLUTIONS
  • PROPOSITION LOGIC NOT VERY EXPRESSIVE
  • Sol RESTRICT THE LANGUAGE
  • FINITE DOMAIN
  • SCALABILITY
  • Sol PARSING AND TRANSLATION, ONE AT A TIME.
  • BOUND BY SIZE OF THE NL.

22
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE ADVANCEMENTS
  • INTEGRATING CARL WITH REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT
  • RECORDS ALL APPLICATIONS
  • AUTOMATIC ERROR DETECTION
  • COMBINES EXPRESSIVENESS OF NL WITH PRECISENESS,
    RIGOR, AND FORMALITY OF LOGIC.

23
QUESTIONS???
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com