Optimal-Constraint Lexicons for Requirements Specifications

Constrained Natural Languages (CNLs) are becoming an increasingly popular way of writing technical documents such as requirements specifications. This is because CNLs aim to reduce the ambiguity inherent within natural languages, whilst maintaining their readability and expressiveness. The design of existing CNLs appears to be unfocused towards achieving specific quality outcomes, in that the majority of lexical selections have been based upon lexicographer preferences rather than an optimum trade-off between quality factors such as ambiguity, readability, expressiveness, and lexical magnitude. In this paper we introduce the concept of 'replaceability' as a way of identifying the lexical redundancy inherent within a sample of requirements. Our novel and practical approach uses Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to enable us to make dynamic trade-offs between quality factors to optimise the resultant CNL. We also challenge the concept of a CNL being a one-dimensional static language, and demonstrate that our optimal-constraint process results in a CNL that can adapt to a changing domain while maintaining its expressiveness.

[1]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Book Reviews: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing , 1999, CL.

[2]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 27-30 June 1994, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, Proceedings , 1994, ACL.

[3]  Vincenzo Gervasi,et al.  Achieving quality in natural language requirements , 1998 .

[4]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection , 1994, ACL.

[5]  Ted Pedersen,et al.  SenseRelate: : TargetWord-A Generalized Framework for Word Sense Disambiguation , 2005, ACL.

[6]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Measuring the expressiveness of a constrained natural language: an empirical study , 2005, 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05).

[7]  Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang,et al.  Memory-Based Shallow Parsing , 2002, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[8]  Ivy Hooks,et al.  What Is A Requirement , 1993 .

[9]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  An Automatic Quality Evaluation for Natural Language Requirements , 2001 .

[10]  G. Miller,et al.  Contextual correlates of semantic similarity , 1991 .

[11]  R. Quirk,et al.  A university grammar of English , 1973 .

[12]  Barbara Paech,et al.  Detecting Ambiguities in Requirements Documents Using Inspections , 2001 .

[13]  Alan M. Davis,et al.  Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification , 1993, [1993] Proceedings First International Software Metrics Symposium.

[14]  Nancy Ide,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Word Sense Disambiguation: The State of the Art , 1998, Comput. Linguistics.

[15]  Rolf Schwitter,et al.  English as a formal specification language , 2002, Proceedings. 13th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications.

[16]  Ted Pedersen,et al.  WordNet::Similarity - Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts , 2004, NAACL.

[17]  Marc Moens,et al.  Designing a controlled language for interactive model checking , 2000 .

[18]  Barbara Farbey,et al.  Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design , 1991 .

[19]  Teruko Mitamura,et al.  Controlled Language for Multilingual Document Production: Experience with Caterpillar Technical English 1 , 1998 .

[20]  Rada Mihalcea,et al.  SenseLearner: Word Sense Disambiguation for All Words in Unrestricted Text , 2005, ACL.

[21]  Norbert E. Fuchs,et al.  Attempto Controlled English (ACE) , 1996, ArXiv.

[22]  Harold L. Somers,et al.  Computers and translation : a translator's guide , 2003 .

[23]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  An automatic tool for the analysis of natural language requirements , 2005, Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng..

[24]  Rada Mihalcea,et al.  SenseLearner: Minimally supervised Word Sense Disambiguation for all words in open text , 2004, SENSEVAL@ACL.