The Open UniversitySkip to content
 

Using Argumentation to Explain Ambiguity in Requirements Elicitation Interviews

Elrakaiby, Yehia; Ferrari, Alessio; Spolentini, Paola; Gnesi, Stefania and Nuseibeh, Bashar (2017). Using Argumentation to Explain Ambiguity in Requirements Elicitation Interviews. In: 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference, 4 - 8 September 2017, Lisbon, Portugal.

Full text available as:
[img]
Preview
PDF (Accepted Manuscript) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (337kB) | Preview
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link: https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.27
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar

Abstract

The requirements elicitation process often starts with an interview between a customer and a requirements analyst. During these interviews, ambiguities in the dialogic discourse may reveal the presence of tacit knowledge that needs to be made explicit. It is therefore important to understand the nature of ambiguities in interviews and to provide analysts with cognitive tools to identify and alleviate ambiguities. Ambiguities perceived by analysts are sometimes triggered by specific categories of terms used by the customer such as pronouns, quantifiers, and vague or under-specified terms. However, many of the ambiguities that arise in practice cannot be rooted in single terms. Rather, entire fragments of speech and their relation to the mental state of the analyst need to be considered. In this paper, we show that particular types of ambiguities can be characterised by means of argumentation theory. Argumentation is the study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning. In an argumentation theory, statements are represented as arguments, and conflict relations among statements are represented as attacks. Based on a set of ambiguous fragments extracted from interviews, we define a model of the mental state of the analyst during an interview and translate it into an argumentation theory. Then, we show that many of the ambiguities can be characterized in terms of ‘attacks’ on arguments. The main novelty of this work is in addressing the problem of explaining fragment-level ambiguities in requirements elicitation interviews through the formal modeling of the analyst’s mental model using argumentation theory. Our contribution provides a data-grounded, theoretical basis to have a more complete understanding of the ambiguity phenomenon, and lays the foundations to design intelligent computer-based agents that are able to automatically identify ambiguities.

Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item
Academic Unit/School: Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) > Computing and Communications
Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
Research Group: Centre for Research in Computing (CRC)
International Development & Inclusive Innovation
Item ID: 51557
Depositing User: Bashar Nuseibeh
Date Deposited: 19 Oct 2017 14:09
Last Modified: 20 Dec 2017 16:53
URI: http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/51557
Share this page:

Altmetrics

Download history for this item

These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   contact the OU