2011 5th Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering (MySEC)

Controlled Vocabulary based Software Requirements

Classification
Nasir Mehmood Minhas1
UIIT, PMAS-Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi,
Pakistan
nasirminhas@uaar.edu.pk
Shahla Majeed2
UIIT PMAS-Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi,
Pakistan
shahla.ch02@gmail.com
Zia ul Qayyum3
UIIT PMAS-Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi,
Pakistan
ziaqayyum@uaar.edu.pk
Muhammad Aasem4
UIIT PMAS-Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi,
Pakistan
muhammadaasem@gmail.com

Abstract — The nature of software requirements is very much
subjective and multi-faceted. The level of complexity increases
along-with the volume, especially when the requirements are in
natural language. In the primary phase of requirements
engineering, it is mostly desirable to transform these user written
requirements into more understandable form. Organizing the
requirements in different groups may support further activities
much easier than direct working. In this paper, we present a
classifier that sufficiently transforms natural language written
requirements into corresponding groups. The organization of these
groups depends upon the inter-keywords association i.e., hierarchy
of keywords. The classifier works best when requirements have
been written using relative vocabulary i.e., controlled vocabulary.
The overall structure of this technique is composed on three main
components: 1) Repository: of keywords and their relationships as
source data, 2) Mapping: Finding words in the requirements
document with keywords of repository, and 3) Presentation:
presenting classified (grouped) requirements in more meaningful
ways.
I. INTRODUCTION
The importance of classification in library, biology, earth,
astrology, and social sciences has widely been accepted. It has
been also a major research area of computer science i.e. image
processing, bioinformatics, data mining and machine learning.
From last couple of decades, ‘classification’ has also been an
attractive keyword in software engineering domain for
classifying errors, software features, software risks, and software
testing [1, 3, 4, 6]. Regarding requirements engineering,
classification can play very supportive roles in many stages like
improving the understandability of user requirements [2, 7],
priorities setting [17, 26, 27, 28], and assessment of their quality.
Moreover, requirements classification can also be used to reduce
the complexity of decision making by reducing large number of
requirements into fewer groups [26].
Classifying requirements also presents their different
perspectives [4] that may require analyzing them in further
stages. For small or medium number of requirements, manual
classification shall be tried first, because human experts can
better express the value of a requirement very easily and more
accurately. But it becomes a complex and time consuming task
in projects having large number or complex nature of
requirements [8]. In such cases, manual classification is suffering
from certain limitations like dealing with large number of
requirements, unavailability of experts, wrong judgment etc.
Due to these limitations it is desirable to automate manual
processes to form automated classifier. This will save the time,
effort and decrease the cost of experts’ man hours. The focus of
this paper is to develop such a desirable automated classifier, that
could efficiently classify software requirements.
One of the main issues with such a classifier is: to gain a
desired level of decision maturity as a human expert. As an ideal
scenario, we set our vision to an automated classification system
that is capable to takes large number of natural language written
requirements and transform them to some bearable number of
groups. These groups shall reflect their existence based on one or
more parameters so that they can visualize different
stakeholders’ perspectives.
In this paper we discuss a simple automated classifier which
is based on controlled vocabulary to divide user written
requirements into some specified groups. After presenting an
overview of related literature in next section, the abstract of the
proposed technique shall be discussed in section III. While in
section IV and V controlled vocabulary based repository and
classifier shall be discussed respectively. Implementation of the
technique on three case-studies has been discussed in section in
VI, and the results of these case studies have been discussed in
section VII. Finally we conclude and set future directions.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Most of the existing literature is generally related to text
classification and classification of non-functional requirements
(NFR). For text processing we have two approaches statistical
and linguistics [8]. Linguistic approaches are costly and difficult
to scalable than the statistical approaches. So that statistical
approaches are mostly used relatively linguistic approaches.
Classification performed in three phases by using both ways
manual and automated, three phases are: Mining phase,
classification phase and application phase [10]. Classification

978-1-4577-1531-0/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

31
method described in this paper is appropriate for intermediate
and high level projects. Requirements can be successfully
identified in first two phases. Non-functional requirements are
identified from all scattered documents i.e. interviews, meeting
minutes and stakeholders’ comments. To detect the requirements
from all type of documents they used automatic NFR classifier,
then to finalize the requirements there is an analyst. Due to both
manual and automated methods they require more effort and
time.
This classification method is used for large-scale projects. A
boot strapping method can automatically classify the
requirements sentences into each topic category using the topic
word which is already assigned to the system [8]. A text
classification framework based on genetic algorithm [11]. This
framework is divided into four modules: pretreatment module (it
will convert the document into computer model that is easy to
deal than written document.), Learning classifier (generating
classifier by using different algorithm that are based on genetic
algorithm), and Classification module (generate tagging
documents) and Feedback module (update the classified
templates by using stakeholder’s response.) [11]. Text
classification methods are used to reduce the ambiguities that are
arises due to natural languages. This paper presents the
hierarchal text classification. Two type of text classification is
introduced: heavy classification and light classification [9].
Heavy classification deals with the similar content document by
using naïve bay’s algorithm. Light classification deals with the
documents that have variations in data which overcomes by
using Euclidean distance. Generally requirements should be
classified into main two categories i.e. functional requirements
(FR) and non-functional requirements (NFR) that have a strong
impact on requirement engineering [12]. Some people consider
security requirement as FR but as FR it is not a successful term,
so who consider security requirements as NFRs that is better to
consider it FR. But to secure the system behavior’s security we
have to be modeled it as functional requirement. In this paper
authors describe the security requirement from each aspect. So
there is no need for separate security engineering process. In this
paper they examined and compared some important
classification methods for security requirements [12]. Leaf
classification method is used for computerized plant
identification system [13]. A scaled Centroid-Contour Distance
(CCD) code system is used to classify basic shapes and margin
type of a leaf. They use neural network approach to extract vein
details of a leaf. The proposed method integrates low-level
features of an image and specifies the knowledge in the domain
of botany [13]. Statistical text classification methods consider
their terms are independent there is no semantic relationship
existing between them [14]. Words always have some
relationship between them, as requirements are written in natural
languages, so that the problem arises is very important to
consider. To resolve this problem in this paper authors combine
two methods statistical and ontology methods. We can get the
32
relationships by using ontology method [14]. We couldn’t use
ontology based method separately because ontology based
classification lacks the scientific statistical calculations. A tool in
java automates the process of extraction, analysis and
classification of events from textual requirements [15]. It will
also helps in assigning to add further events relevant to
application domain. A multi-subject text classification algorithm
based on fuzzy vector machine is used to classify the sample
[16]. SVM is used to resolve the problem of multi-class
classification and for text categorization [16, 20, & 21]. The
classification framework is proposed for requirement
prioritization methods based on benefits and cost estimation [17].
This framework is derived from ground theory. By using ground
theory many relevant categories can be discovered. K-Nearest
Neighbor and Centroid-based Classification algorithms are
commonly used for text classification. In this paper K-NN and
Centroid-based algorithms are examined then they use Centroid-
based algorithm for text classification with some improvements
[18]. They use Centroid-based algorithm other than K-NN
because K-NN is slower to proceeds the data’s distances/
similarities than Centroid-based algorithm. A top-down level
based classification method is proposed in this paper that can
classify the requirement document at each level i.e. leaf and
internal categories [19]. Categories Performance could be
measure incorrectly due to their relationships considered
independently, so that they have been used Category-Similarity
Measures and Distance-Based Measures to consider the
misclassification in measuring the classification performance.
Some of classification methods: the Support Vector Machines
(SVM), a k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) classifier, a neural network
(NNet) approach, the Linear Least squares Fit (LLSF) mapping
and a Naive Bayes (NB) classifier are used for text
categorization and dealing with their performance as training set
[20]. One major issue is feature selection in text
categorization/classification that could be resolved by using any
feature selection method (i.e. Information Gain (IG), Document
Frequency (DF), Mutual Information (MI) and etc), but all
methods have some lacking so that in this paper Knowledge
Gain (KG) is proposed and successfully implemented for feature
selection in text categorization [22]. A two-step method of
feature selection is proposed for text categorization by using IG
and NB [23].
III. SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFIER
Classification is generally described as the arrangement of
objects into groups based on the specified rules. From
requirements engineering perspective, classification is referred to
the organization of software requirements into different classes
such that they could provide meaningful bases for decision
making for further (analytical) activities. These activities may
include planning releases, identification of critical and core
requirements, assessment of conflicting requirements, and
summarizing requirements. Three main components/elements requirements. Therefore, to make is simple; the repository shall
can be found in every definition of the classification: set of be maintained in the form of a database tables. The data from
objects (to be classified), classification criteria, and classifier. these tables could easily be accessed using structure query
This paper presents a classification technique that takes set of language (SQL). The hierarchy of relational data in relational
software requirements written in natural language and organizes database can also be represented in views (virtual tables) by
them into different classes based on specified rules (repository of writing queries forming data hierarchal in way.
controlled vocabulary). Classification of natural language written
requirements is much easier for human experts but too difficult
for computers. The technique is not considering the semantics of
the language; rather, it looks for the predefined vocabulary and
their relationship with the associated groups. Therefore, it
follows a simple algorithm mainly supported by the supplied
repository.
The structure of the technique can be described in three
components: 1) set of software requirements written as English
sentences i.e., each statement refers to one requirement, 2) set of
parameters or rules i.e., the repository of controlled vocabulary
of the functional domain, and 3) classifier (the algorithm) that
performs the process of classification by taking first two
components as inputs and organizes then into associated groups.
The repository of controlled vocabulary illustrated in figure 1 is
the mean to train the classifier about how to assign each
requirement to related group.

IV. REPOSITORY OF CONTROLLED VOCABULARY

The core component of the proposed classifier is the Figure 1. Hierarchal Organization of controlled vocabulary
repository of controlled vocabulary. This repository can be
either in the form of a flat file, XML, or a database managed by a From implementation point of view, we developed relational
DBMS. Moreover, it can be managed and compiled using any tables and their relationships with each others. Figure 2, shows
approach discussed in [25]. Existing methods to compile these tables prefixed with level numbers as t0, t1, t2, t3 referring
controlled vocabulary may belong to any of the four methods level 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
[25]. These methods are either 1) compiler based on words
extracted; 2) adding the natural language search sign into one
existing vocabulary or classification table; 3) manual
compilation of vocabulary using computers to automatically
collect and accumulate terms; 4) using ready-made general
vocabulary as a substitute.
The logical structure of storing the data of such a controlled
vocabulary is hierarchal. There are certain reasons for making it
hierarchal; data could be easily traced even manual; the
searching of a particular keyword or word would be fast. The
repository shall be organized into three levels i.e., Keywords,
Words, and Alternatives. A top most level has also been
proposed to refer a particular repository. Figure 1, illustrates the
organization of the proposed hierarchy. It clearly shows that the
levels at the top present generic terminology while lower levels
expand and explain the upper ones. The keywords are explained
Figure 2.Relational Tables for storing controlled vocabulary
by associated words which are further linked with alternative
words. These alternative words can be synonyms, thesaurus, Based on these tables, a view is required to access all data of
different forms of verbs, etc. the repository. This view can easily be created by joining these
At this point, our main focus is to develop a repository that tables according to the hierarchy.
can demonstrate the effectiveness of the classifier for software The following query can be used to create such a view:

33

select t0repo.*, t1keywords.*, t2words.*, t3alternates.*
from t0repo, t1keywords, t2words, t3alternates
where t0repo.t0repo = t1keywords.t1repo
and t1keywords.t1kid = t2words.t2kid
and t2words.t2kid = t3alternates.t3kid
and t2words.t2wid = t3alternates.t3wid;
V. CLASSIFICATION USING CONTROLLED VOCABULARY
The classifier of our interest strongly depends upon the
vocabulary used in the repository (discussed previously). If the
repository has high coherence with respect to the given
requirements; the resultant output will be of high quality. The
challenging part of this technique is the selection of suitable
keywords and creating their repository for classification. The
creation of the repository must include the key person of the
functional area because he/she better knows the keywords and
meaning behind those keywords for domain user. Selection of
the vocabulary should be made in prediction manner that why
and when the user will choose the (key)word. Moreover, the
groups reflecting the keyword must be meaningful toward its
decision making objective.
Figure 3 is the abstraction of the proposed approach. It starts
with the user requirements that have been obtained from
different users. These requirements were mapped with the words
in repository iteratively. Finally they were presented in the form
of groups; each containing a set of requirements. These groups
can be further used for further analysis of requirement
engineering.
Another illustration of the classifier internal mechanics can
be seen in figure 4. It presents the pseudo code of the technique.
Set REQ is represented as user requirements and REPO as the
repository of controlled vocabulary. The mapping function has
been used to link keywords with words and words with
alternative words. Two loops have been used such that one is
inner of another. The internal loop is executed for each
requirement to map then against one or more elements of the
34
repository. It can be noted that the inner loop searches for
elements as much as possible. This means that a requirement can
be a member of one or many groups. At the succession of each
finding the mapping elements are placed on set GROUPS.
REQ = {Set of user written requirements}
GROUPS={}
KEYWORDS = {KW1, KW2,…, KWn}
WORDS = { W1, W2,…, Wnm}
ALTERNATIVES = {A1, A2,…, Anma}
REPO = { map KEYWORDS to WORDS
map WORDS to ALTERNATIVES }
for each requirement of REQ
R Å current_requirement| requirement  REQ
for each element of REPO
If R  KEYWORD then
GROUPS = GROUPS ‰ {map R to REQ }
End if
end for
end for
Figure 4. Pseudo code for the Classifier
The pseudo code clearly depicts that requirements are
analyzed in the light of repository of controlled vocabulary and
assigned to groups if their associated keyword has been found.
As there is not control exit in the inner-loop for more than one
occurrence, therefore, a requirement can be assigned to more
than one group.
VI. CASE STUDIES
In order to validate our approach results and performance, we
developed database application software based on the underlying
concept and applied on three case studies i.e., LIMS: Library
Information Management System, RESMAN: Online Resource
Management System and IESCO: Automated Accountant
System. These case studies have been selected from the
submitted projects of BS (CS) students. For demonstration
purpose, we explain the first case study LIMS step by step in
detail while RESMAN and IESCO have been discussed without
internal details.
LIMS has been described by its functional user in at most ten
requirements. These requirements can be seen in figure 6
(ignoring the tags enclosed in << and >>). Assuming the
perception of a library user (librarian), we developed a repository
that is capable to capture different classes within these
requirements. This repository can be seen in hierarchal way in
figure 5. Using our template based excel file, user requirements
and developed repository have been transformed into separate
sheets. The file was than imported to our database software
application and mapping process has been executed.
In its first execution, nine requirements were mapped out of
ten. The reason was the requirement no. 3. In this requirement no
keyword, word or alternative was found. The requirement was
analyzed and an ‘Alternative’ word was found to update the
repository with. Once the repository was updated; ten out of ten
requirements were mapped and classified.
Figure 5. Repository for LIMS
1. All library members enter into their accounts using user
name and password. <<Secure>>
2. If a member forgets his/her password, password shall be
sent by email. <<Secure>>
3. Once login into member area, a member can search, sort,
bookmark books. <<Transaction>>
4. Each member has a quota to issue and reserve books.
<<Transaction>>
5. New Books can be added, that will immediately available
for transactions. <<Transaction>>
6. A reserved book can either be released or issued by the
same member. <<Transaction>>
7. If reserved book was not released or issued within two
days, it shall be released automatically.
<<Transaction>><<Automatic>>
8. Issued book shall be returned within 15 days.
<<Transaction>>
9. If issued book was not returned in 15 days, then each day
Rs. 50 will be charged. <<Transaction>>
10. System automatically generates mail to remind issued
book to be returned within 13 days.
<<Transaction>><<Automatic>>
Figure 6. User Requirements mapped (tagged) by classifier
At the execution of the mapping process, the classifier added
associated group(s) with each requirement. These tags depict that
the sentence confirms one or more controlled vocabulary of the
repository. Hence they are classifiable for the purpose their
repository was designed to.
The requirements of RESMAN and IESCO were also
executed in similar way. RESMAN contains 21 requirements
covering modules like employee management, assets
management, document management, transport management,
and employee book. IESCO’s 21 requirements explain features
for recruitment, employee management, appraisal, leave
management, Pay calculation, and Account management. The
RESMAN’s all requirements were mapped while 2 requirements
were found un-tagged in IESCO.
VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The validity of results obtained from the case studies were
compared systematically by the results The validation of our
classification approach was performed by a human expert
because of unavailability of such an approach. After performing
the exercise, we found some accuracy gap when compared both
the results.
The accuracy of LIMS and IESCO are 85% and 86% while
ResMan has 79% of accuracy. Therefore, we group them in two
classes such that group 1 includes LIMS and IESCO because of
their closer results and ResMan to group 2. Group 1 can be
called best case while group 2 is referred as worst case. The
purpose of dividing them into such groups is to analyze their
parameters and causes for being so.
The figure 7 clearly shows the trend of case studies results
based on the inputs. The number of requirements in group 1 is
greater than the group 2’s. On the same pattern, keywords in
group 1 are also less than group 2. Based on these two input
parameters, it can be deducted that as soon as number
requirements get larger and their keywords have not been fully
defined than their classification accuracy decreases.
Figure 7. Parameters and Results of the case studies
As keywords are described by words and alternative words,
therefore, they have a great impact on its results. Keywords,
words and alternatives form a repository that has to be designed
carefully according to that domain. The pattern in the figure 7
35
regarding the repository shows that number of words and
alternates are closer on average. This observation illustrates the
trend of improved results when vocabulary used in requirements
writing sufficiently meets with the controlled vocabulary that has
been used in the repository. On this point it is important to
enlighten the importance of qualitative repository items. Even
the quantity of repository items cannot guarantee effective
results if its quality has not been improved.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
This paper presents an automated software requirements
classification technique and demonstrated its implementation
using in three case studies. The main component of this
technique has been highlighted as the repository of controlled
vocabulary. Three-level hierarchal structure of the repository
was discussed in detail. The mechanics of software classifier
were explained from different perspectives and result presented.
The work presented in this paper is in its initial form. Two main
areas have been found to improve its effectiveness i.e., 1)
Updating the repository according to the missing words of not
classified requirements, and 2) Improving the quality of results
such that it could better reflect real groups of interest.
REFERENCES
[1] Z.T. Bieniawski, “Engineering rock mass classifications”, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989, pp. 251.
[2] H. Stille and A. Palmstrom, “Classification as a tool in rock
engineering”, Tunnelling and underground space technology, 2003,
pp. 331-345.
[3] E. Hochmuller, “Requirement classification as a first step to grasp
quality requirements”, Proc. Third International Workshop on
Requirements Engineering: foundation of Software Quality
(REFSQ’97), Barcelona, June 1997.
[4] H. Hoodat and H. Rashidi, “Classification and Analysis of Risks in
Software Engineering”, World Academy of science, Engineering
and Technology, 2009.
[5] P. Zave, “Classification of Research Efforts in Requirements
Engineering”, AT & T Bell Laboratories, 1997.
[6] M. Hertzum, “Small-Scale Classification Schemes: A field study of
requirement engineering”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 35-61.
[7] M. Y. Kiang, “A comparative assessment of classification
methods”, Decision support system, 2003, pp. 441-454.
[8] Y. Ko, S. Park, J. Seo and S. Choi, “Using classification techniques
for informal requirements in the requirements analysis-supporting
system”, Information and Software Technology, 2007, pp. 1128-
1140.
[9] J. Polpinij and A. Ghose, “An Automatic Elaborate Requirement
Specification By Using Hierarchal Text Classification”,
International Conference on Computer Science and Software
Engineering, 2008, pp. 706-709.
[10] J. C. Huang, R. Settimi, X. Zou and P. Solc, “The Detection and
Classification of Non-Functional Requirements with Application to
Early Aspects”, 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering
Conference, 2006.
36
[11] Z. Z. Fang, L. P. Yu and L. Ran, “Research of text classification
technology based on genetic annealing algorithm”, International
symposium on computational intelligence and design, 2008, pp.
265-269.
[12] T. R. Farkhani and M. R. Razzazi, “Examination and Classification
of Security Requirements of Software Systems”, IEEE 2006, pp.
2778-2783.
[13] H. Fu, Z. Chai, D. Feng and J. Song, “Machine Learning
Techniques for Ontology-based Leaf Classification”, 8th
International Conference of on control automation robotics and
vision Kunming, December 2004, pp. 681-686.
[14] G. Wu and K. Liu, “Research on Text Classification Algorithm By
Combining Statistical and Ontology Methods”, IEEE 2009.
[15] S. K. Singh, S. Sabharwal and J. P. Gupta, “E-XTRACT: A Tool
for Extraction, Analysis and Classification of Events from Textual
Requirements”, International Conference on Advances in Recent
Technologies in Communication and Computing, 2009, pp.306-
308.
[16] Q. Yu-ping, A. Qing, W. Xiu-kun and L. Xiang-na, “Study on
Classification Algorithm of Multi-Subject Text”, IEEE 2007, pp.
435-438.
[17] M. Daneva and A. Herrmann, “Requirements Prioritization Based
on Benefit and Cost Prediction: A Method Classification
Framework”, IEEE 2008, pp. 240-247.
[18] Z.Cataltepe and E. Aygun, “An improvement of Centroid-Based
Classification Algorithm for Text Classification”, IEEE 2007, pp.
952-956.
[19] A. Sun and E. Lim, “Hierarchical Text Classification and
Evaluation”, IEEE 2001.
[20] Y. Yang and X. Liu, “A re-examination of text categorization
methods”, 1999.
[21] T. Zhang, “Text Categorization Based on Regularized Linear
Classification Methods”, 2001.
[22] X. Yan, L. Jin-Tao, W. Bin and S. Chun-Ming, “A Category
Resolve Power-Based Feature Selection Method”, Journal of
Software, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2008, pp. 8289.
[23] N. Long, D. Gianola, G. J. M. Rosa, K. A. Weigel and S. Avendan,
“Machine learning classification procedure for selecting SNPs in
genomic selection: application to early mortality in broilers”, 2007,
pp. 377-389.
[24] G. S. Walia and J. C. Carver, “A systematic literature review to
identify and classify software requirement errors”, Information and
Software Technology, 2009, pp. 1087-1109.
[25] J. Li, and Y. Dong, Post-controlled Vocabulary Compiling in
Competitive Intelligence System. IEEE transaction, 2010.
[26] M. Aasem, “Analysis and optimization of software requirements
prioritization Techniques”. MS Thesis-2011, Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi,
[27] A. Kashif. “A Systematic Review of Software Requirements
Prioritization”. Thesis no MSE-2006-18.BTH.
[28] A. Ahl, “An Experimental Comparison of Five Prioritization
Techniques” - Investigating Ease of Use,Accuracy, and Scalability",
Master Thesis No. MSE-2005-11, BTH