1. REVERE Recovering Legacy Requirements an EPSRC-SEBPC project

2. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer2 Positioning User/Customer Requirements Engineer Software Architect Environment NeedsSpecification Design / Architecture

3. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer3 Acronyms n REVERE: Reverse engineering of requirements to support business process change n SEBPC: Systems Engineering for Business Process Change n CSEG: Co-operative Systems Engineering Group n UCREL: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language

4. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer4 Who? n Supervised by Roger Garside and Pete Sawyer n A joint CSEG & UCREL project n Adelard consultancy providing technical advice, documentary data, evaluation of the integrated method and piloting of the toolset resulting from the project.

5. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer5 What? n Improve the requirements analysis for legacy system evolution where underlying BP has already changed. Pre-change organisation Post-change organisation Target operational software Existing operational software De-facto organisation change Required software change Motivating requirements New requirements

6. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer6 Proposal n Reverse engineering of requirements documents by the novel integration of techniques for the textual analysis of documentation; modelling of business processes; and modelling the organisational structures serving the business processes. n Project started in May 1998 n Review other applications of NLP n Rule-based (Goldin and Berry, 1997: Abstfinder) or sub- language examples (Cyre 1995)

7. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer7 Why? n BP change means redesign support systems, operating procedures and documentation. n High cost of recovering the motivating requirements. n Key people who possess the knowledge may be unavailable. n Information is often implicit in documents such as requirements specifications, operating manuals and data models.

8. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer8 What next? n UCREL tools provide robust analysis over unrestricted domains n Mainly statistically based with template analysis components n Layered: POS, lemmatisation, anaphor resolution, semantic analysis n Corpus annotation is fast and accurate way of improving information extraction from text n Porting from UNIX to Linux & PC n Integrate with Adelard’s Claviar

9. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer9 CLAWS POS tagging n Grammatical tagging, is the commonest form of corpus annotation, and was the first form of annotation to be developed by UCREL at Lancaster. Our POS tagging software for English text, CLAWS (the Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System), has been continuously developed since the early 1980s. The latest version of the tagger, CLAWS4, was used to POS tag c.100 million words of the British National Corpus (BNC).

10. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer10 CLAWS POS tagging n Grammatical_JJ tagging_NN1@,_, is_VBZ the_AT commonest_JJT form_NN1 of_IO corpus_NN1 annotation_NN1,_, and_CC was_VBDZ the_AT first_MD form_NN1 of_IO annotation_NN1 to_TO be_VBI developed_VVN by_II UCREL_NP1 at_II Lancaster_NP1._. Our_APPGE POS_NN2 tagging_VVG software_NN1 for_IF English_JJ text_NN1,_, CLAWS_NN2 (_( the_AT Constituent_NN1 Likelihood_NN1 Automatic_JJ Word- tagging_JJ System_NN1 )_),_, has_VHZ been_VBN continuously_RR developed_VVN since_CS the_AT early_JJ 1980s_MC2._. The_AT latest_JJT version_NN1 of_IO the_AT tagger_NN1,_, CLAWS4_FO,_, was_VBDZ used_JJ to_II POS_NN2 tag_VV0 c.100_FO million_NNO words_NN2 of_IO the_AT British_JJ National_JJ Corpus_NN1._.

11. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer11 Semantic tagging n Grammatical_Q3 tagging_Z99,_PUNC is_A3+ the_Z5 commonest_A6.2+++ form_A4.1 of_Z5 corpus_Q3 annotation_Q1.2,_PUNC and_Z5 was_A3+ the_Z5 first_P1c[i1.2.1 form_P1c[i1.2.2 of_Z5 annotation_Q1.2 to_Z5 be_Z5 developed_A2.1+ by_Z5 UCREL_Z99 at_Z5 Lancaster_Z2._PUNC Our_Z8 POS_I2.2 tagging_Q1.1 software_Y2 for_Z5 English_Z2 text_Q1.2,_PUNC CLAWS_L2 (_PUNC the_Z5 Constituent_G1.2/S2mf Likelihood_A7 Automatic_A1.1.1 Word-tagging_Z99 System_X4.2 )_PUNC,_PUNC has_Z5 been_Z5 continuously_T2++ developed_A2.1+ since_Z5 the_Z5 early_T1.3[i2.2.1 1980s_T1.3[i2.2.2._PUNC The_Z5 latest_T3--- version_A4.1 of_Z5 the_Z5 tagger_Z99,_PUNC CLAWS4_Z99,_PUNC was_A3+ used_T1.1.1[i3.2.1 to_T1.1.1[i3.2.2 POS_I2.2 tag_Q1.1 c.100_Z99 million_N1 words_Q3 of_Z5 the_Z5 British_Z2 National_Z3c Corpus_Q3._PUNC

12. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer12 Statistical analysis n Build training & test corpus and separate normative corpus for vocabulary norms: u requirements documents, operating manuals u IBM manuals corpus (800K) u Subcorpus of BNC (applied science 11 million words) u CSEG technical reports? u Transcripts of ethnographic studies of technical workplaces u Public domain IT standards documents n Retrain CLAWS probability matrix, vocabulary and idiom usage and investigate frequency distributions for text norms

13. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer13 Preliminary results n Semantic comparison of LIBSYS and BNCIT corpus

14. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer14 Objects and operations

15. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer15 Discussion for paper 1 (Carroll & Swatman) n Which quality features are addressed by the paper? u Quality management of the early phases of RE process in order to target business problems correctly. n What is the main novelty/contribution of the paper? u “RE is opportunistic not deterministic”. n How will this novelty/contribution improve RE practice/research? u Avoid focussing on one methodology n What are the main problems with the novelty/contribution and/or paper? u Case study may be unrepresentative in terms of composition of the team. n Can the proposed approach be expected to scale to real-life problems? u If a company has invested and trained in one methodology then they will probably use it, whether it fits the problem or not.

16. REFSQ’99Paul Rayson, Roger Garside, Pete Sawyer16 Discussion for paper 3 (Claus et al) n Which quality features are addressed by the paper? u Quality assurance: establishing organisational procedures and standards n What is the main novelty/contribution of the paper? u Demonstrates practical ‘management’ problems of introducing requirements management. n How will this novelty/contribution improve RE practice/research? u Emphasise involvement of stakeholders from an early stage. n What are the main problems with the novelty/contribution and/or paper? u Technical problems were trivial in this case study. n Can the proposed approach be expected to scale to real-life problems? u Don’t underestimate the difficulty of making the change happen.