<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Agent-Oriented Information Technology for Assessing the Initial Stages of the Software Life Cycle</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>1857</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>0000</fpage>
      <lpage>0002</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The paper presents the development of agent-oriented information technology (AOIT) for assessing the sufficiency of information at the initial stages of the software life cycle. This AOIT performs automatic assessments and provides improving the level of sufficiency information of requirements for determination of each non-functional characteristic separately and all non-functional characteristics together, with the result that the gap in knowledge about nonfunctional characteristics for software is reduced. In addition, the developed AOIT minimizes the impact of the human factor and simplifies the performance of this assessment both by the developer and the customer. The developed agent-oriented information technology also provide: automation of the tedious, time-consuming, fatiguing and error-prone task of parsing the SRS; instantly show where re-work of requirements is needed; speed training for new systems engineers and project managers; the authoring of high-quality requirements; the correction and elimination of the requirements errors where they originate - during the early stages of the project; the tool for choosing the more qualitative software requirements specification; free online access, at any time, without any registration.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Software Requirements</kwd>
        <kwd>Software Requirements Specification (SRS)</kwd>
        <kwd>Sufficiency of Requirements Information</kwd>
        <kwd>Non-Functional Software Characteristics</kwd>
        <kwd>Ontology-Based Intelligent Agent (OBIA)</kwd>
        <kwd>Agent-Oriented Information Technology (AOIT)</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Humanity is now increasingly relying on software when it comes to solving complex
problems and the number of software projects with a high cost is growing rapidly.
Today in the world more than 250 billion USD is spent annually on the development
of approximately 175 thousand software projects. The average cost of a software
project for the large company is 2.322 million USD, for the average company – 1.313
million USD, and for the small company – 434 thousand USD [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1, 2</xref>
        ]. At the same
time, a significant number of software projects are unsuccessful (with overtime, over
costs, lack of functional or canceled to completion and never used). On average, only
16-29% of software projects are executed within the scheduled time and budget (for
large companies - 9-16% of projects); software projects of the largest US companies
have only about 42% of the required capabilities and functions [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1, 2</xref>
        ] – Fig.1 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        A significant quantity of bugs is introduced into the software at the early stages of the
life cycle due to information losses due to the incomplete and different understanding of
the needs and information context (10-23% of all bugs) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4 ref5">4, 5</xref>
        ]. The authors of [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ] give
an even bigger percentage – 56% of all defects of software projects are introduced
during the requirements definition stage. About 50% of requirements defects are the result
of poorly written, unclear, ambiguous or incorrect requirements; the other 50% is due to
the incompleteness of specification (incomplete, insufficient and omitted requirements)
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. So, deficient requirements are the single biggest cause of software project failure.
      </p>
      <p>
        The study on the relative cost of fixing engineering errors during the various phases of
a project development cycle provided one finding common conclusion to all the software
studies they examined and all the systems development projects they studied: the cost to
fix software defects rose exponentially with each successive stage of the project life cycle
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. This is one more compelling argument in favor of finding and correcting requirements
errors where they occur – at the very beginning of the software project.
      </p>
      <p>Consequently, the issues of the analysis and evaluation of the initial stages of the life
cycle have a critical impact on software projects and on the success of their
implementation. Then today, when the number of high-budget software projects is
rapidly growing, the analysis of the software requirements specifications (SRS) and the
possibility of the automated evaluation of the level of elaboration of the initial stages of
the software life cycle are actual problems – in particular, identifying and eliminating
the disadvantages of the initial stages of the software life cycle and the facts of the
insufficiency of information of requirements to software (moreover special attention
needs information about the non-functional characteristics of software).</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Related Works</title>
      <p>Today the following approaches for assessing the sufficiency of information of
requirements to the software are known – Table 1. The review of the known
information technologies, tools and intelligent agents for analyzing the software
requirements is given in Table 2.</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>The approach</title>
        <p>
          Model for validation of sufficiency of
safety requirements, focusing on sufficiency of
hazard identification, hazard analysis, and
software safety requirements traceability
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7 ref8">7, 8</xref>
          ]: several different metrics have been
introduced, in particular, Percent Software
Safety Requirements – as the ratio of the
number of software safety requirements to
the total number of software requirements;
the authors suggest comparing this metric
with a similar metric for implemented
software, on the basis of this comparing the
conclusion about the sufficiency of
software safety requirements is made
Evaluation of testing sufficiency as the
achievement of the test coverage levels
recommended or mandated by safety
standards and industry guidelines [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ]
        </p>
        <sec id="sec-2-1-1">
          <title>Theoretical and applied principles of evaluating the sufficiency of the information on quality in the SRS [10]</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Limitations of the approach</title>
        <p>On the basis of the proposed metric,
only the sufficiency of the number of
safety requirements can be assessed, but
not the sufficiency of their information;
the impossibility of interpretation by
comparing the proposed metric for
fundamentally new software; there is no
tool for automatically identifying and
calculating the safety requirements in
the SRS
The approach is aimed only at verification
of software and requirements, but not at the
validation of the developed software and
customer needs; the approach uses the SRS
solely as an input for the developed tool,
but doesn't check the requirements of the
specification for their sufficiency
Automation of such evaluation is not
realized. This approach will be evolved
during further solving the task of
automated analysis of SRS
1
Visure – checker of requirements quality
using natural language processing and
semantic analysis [12]</p>
        <p>Accompa: provides automatic
requirements gathering; automatically detects &amp;
track dependencies between requirements
[12]</p>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-1">
          <title>Innoslate: analyzes requirements using natural language processing technology [12]</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-2">
          <title>ReqView: organizes requirements into a</title>
          <p>tree hierarchy, uses rich text format for
requirements description [12]
Modern Requirements4TFS: runs
traceability analyses to ensure quality and find
gaps or dependencies in requirements [12]</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-3">
          <title>Natural language processing (NLP) Re</title>
          <p>quirements Analysis Tools (for example,</p>
          <p>
            QVscribe): automate and significantly
speed the searching the possible errors in
natural language documents with
requirements; provide visual scoring of each
assessed requirement [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
            ]
Requirements Analysis Tool: uses of
userdefined glossaries to extract structured
content; Semantic Web technologies are
leveraged for deeper semantic analysis of
the extracted structured content to find
various kinds of problems in requirements
documents [14]
QARCC (Quality Attribute Risk and
Conflict Consultant): is the tool for supporting
conflict identification and requirements
negotiation; it is a knowledge-based tool
used to identify and analyze the conflicts in
early development cycle [15]
          </p>
          <p>Requirements Assistant: identifies the
missing requirements and inconsistency in
requirements; detect the lack of some type
of non-functional requirement such as
reliability, security, safety [16]</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-4">
          <title>Limitation of the glossary on which the tool is based</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-5">
          <title>Doesn't check the sufficiency of SRS requirements (in particular, nonfunctional requirements)</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-6">
          <title>Commercial tool; doesn't provide quantitative assessments (metrics) about missing non-functional requirements</title>
          <p>1</p>
          <p>QuARS Requirements Analysis Tool:
provides screening of the requirements on
consistency, completeness; identifies 37%
of requirements defects [15, 17]</p>
          <p>DESIRe: ensures that the rules of
completeness, non-ambiguity and
comprehensibility are respected [18]
RQV Tool (Requirement Quality
Verification Tool) [18]: a semi-automatic
verification tool for SRS based on a
comprehensive quality model; can help in the
verification of the quality of the SRS on the
basis of ISO 29148:2011</p>
          <p>The ontology-based intelligent agent
(OBIA) for eliminating the ambiguity in
gathered software requirements and for
facilitating the communication with the
stakeholders [19]
The OBIA-based tool that uses
instantiated ontological designs to generate
programming code on the basis of the SRS
[20]</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-7">
          <title>Information technology for assurance of veracity of quality information in the SRS: evaluation of the sufficiency of the volume of the quality information in the SRS [21]</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-8">
          <title>Commercial tool</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-9">
          <title>Provides assessments of the quality of SRS information, but not its completeness or sufficiency</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-2-10">
          <title>Doesn't check whether all user needs have been reflected in such requirements, whether the requirements of the SRS are sufficient</title>
          <p>Doesn't verify and validate the STS
requirements for the needs of the
customers, doesn't assess the sufficiency
of the available information in the SRS
requirements, doesn't identify the needs
that were not reflected in the requirements</p>
          <p>(in particular, non-functional)
The required SRS, which is structured
according to ISO 29148:2011 [22]. This</p>
          <p>IT will be evolved during the further
automated analysis of the SRS</p>
          <p>The review of known information technologies, tools and intelligent agents for the
SRS analysis has shown, that there are a number of effective solutions, but they all
belong to different methodological approaches and are designed to different tasks.
But, there is currently no information technology for assessing the sufficiency of
information at the initial stages of the software life cycle. The actuality of the task of
automated evaluation of the level of elaboration of the initial stages of the software
life cycle on the basis of the analysis of specifications (in particular, the automated
assessment of the sufficiency of information in the SRS), and the lack of information
technology for assessing the sufficiency of information at the initial stages of the
software life cycle causes the need of development of agent-oriented information
technology for assessing the sufficiency of information at the initial stages of the
software life cycle. This ІТ will be based on natural language processing (NLP) and
will significantly reduce the cost of fixing requirements errors by finding them earlier
and faster, and to free experts of the concrete subject domain from tedious,
timeconsuming tasks that waste their expertise.</p>
          <p>Agent-Oriented Information Technology (AOIT) for
Assessing the Sufficiency of Information at the Initial Stages
of the Software Life Cycle
Agent-oriented information technology (AOIT) for assessing the sufficiency of
information at the initial stages of the software life cycle solves the task of assessing the
sufficiency of requirements information for determining only non-functional characteristics of
software, which are software quality characteristics. According to ISO 25010 [23], such
non-functional characteristics are reliability, functional suitability, performance efficiency,
compatibility, maintainability, portability, security, usability. Subcharacteristics of such
non-functional characteristics are also determined by ISO 25010 [23]. Attributes, on the
basis of which such non-functional characteristics and their subcharacteristics are
calculated, are determined by ISO 25023 [24]. Then, the sufficiency of requirements
information for determining above non-functional characteristics is determined by the
presence in the SRS all the attributes, which are necessary for determining the
nonfunctional characteristics (203 attributes, including 138 different attributes).</p>
          <p>
            Taking into account the theoretical principles of the information technology for
evaluating the sufficiency of information on quality in the SRS [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
            ] and the
movement of information flows in the process of assessing the sufficiency of
requirements information for determining the non-functional characteristics, the
AOIT for assessing the sufficiency of information at the initial stages of the software
life cycle is developed (as a set of processes using tools and methods of accumulation,
processing and transmission of primary information for obtaining information of new
quality on the status of the object, subject or phenomena) – Fig. 2.
          </p>
          <p>The purpose of the developed AOIT is the automation of a quantitative assessment
of the level of sufficiency of requirements information for determining the
nonfunctional characteristics, minimization of the impact of the human factor, facilitation
of the implementation of this assessment both by the developer and the customer.
AOIT provides the identification of the need for forming the query to add attributes,
which are necessary for determining the non-functional characteristics, and, if
necessary, forms and visualizes its contents. The developed AOIT automatically
processes available knowledge (non-functional requirements of the SRS) and generates
new knowledge (conclusions about the sufficiency of requirements information, about
the level of information sufficiency, recommendations for improving the level of
information sufficiency in the SRS). As can be seen from Fig. 2, the developed AOIT
is based on the ontology-based intelligent agent (OBIA) for semantic parsing of the
SRS [25] and OBIA for assessing the early stages of the software life cycle [26].</p>
          <p>The OBIA for semantic parsing the SRS accepts the SRS as the input data and
automatically parsing the SRS on the subject of finding the attributes, which are necessary
for determining the non-functional characteristics of the software. The SRS template,
which demonstrates all the necessary attributes for determining the non-functional
characteristics, and their location in the SRS, is proposed to the user in the form of the
base ontology of domain "Software Engineering" (part "Software Requirements
Specification (attributes)"), developed in [21] on the basis of ISO 29148 [22].</p>
          <p>After the parsing of the SRS, this OBIA forms the set of attributes, which are
available in the parsed real SRS. Using the developed in [21] base ontology for the
nonfunctional characteristics (as the known fact) and the obtained set of the available
attributes, this OBIA generates the ontology for real software, which transmits as input
data to other OBIA (to OBIA for assessing the early stages of the software life cycle).</p>
          <p>OBIA for assessing the early stages of the software life cycle carries the comparison
of the base ontology for non-functional characteristics (known fact) with the obtained
ontology for real software. As a result of this comparison, this OBIA, according to the
developed in [26] method, forms the subsets of non-functional characteristics and their
subcharacteristics, which can not be calculated on the basis of the attributes of the real
SRS; concludes about the sufficiency or insufficiency of requirements information for
determining non-functional characteristics; calculates numerical assessments of the
level of sufficiency of the requirements information for determining each non-functional
characteristics and all non-functional characteristics together; provides visualization of
gaps in knowledge about non-functional characteristics.</p>
          <p>If the level of information sufficiency is 100% (for example, for critical software)
or is acceptable for the customer (but we recommend the level of sufficiency no less
85% with the purpose of minimization of information losses during the initial stages
of the software life cycle), then the further work on the software project is performed;
otherwise, the SRS developers are requested to add the required attributes to the SRS
(with visualized hints, which attributes should be added), after which the SRS may be
re-analyzed by the developed AOIT.</p>
          <p>The developed AOIT makes it possible to compare different SRS for software
projects with the same cost and duration; to guarantee the inclusion in the requirements
of the information, which are necessary for the further determination of non-functional
characteristics, thereby reducing the gap in knowledge about non-functional
characteristics for software projects. The main advantage of the developed AOIT is the
automation of the processes of parsing the SRS and of assessing the sufficiency of the
requirements information for determining the non-functional characteristics, due to this
eliminating the subjective influence of the person, and saving the information in the
software company in the event of dismissal of a specialist.</p>
          <p>Another important advantage of the developed AOIT is low cost of parsing
(translating) the human-spoken (natural language) requirements, because it provides the
analysis of the requirements on the subject of identification of the availability or
absence (miss) of attributes, which are necessary for determining the non-functional
characteristics. Since for determining the sufficiency, it is only necessary to know
whether there is the attribute in the requirements or it is missing in the requirements, so
the rules for parsing the SRS, on the basis of which the developed agent works, are so
simple (if &lt;attribute&gt; is found in the SRS, then &lt;attribute&gt; is the element of the set of
available attributes, else &lt;attribute&gt; is the element of the set of missing attributes). The
simplicity of these rules provides a high speed and low cost of parsing the natural
language requirements.</p>
          <p>The Results of Functioning the AOIT for Assessing the
Sufficiency of Information at the Initial Stages of the</p>
          <p>Software Life Cycle
AOIT for assessing the sufficiency of information at the initial stages of the software
life cycle is implemented in the PHP language in the form of free software and is
available by the link – https://olp-project.herokuapp.com.</p>
          <p>Before uploading the SRS for its processing, the user of AOIT can acquaint with
the template of the SRS, which demonstrates all the necessary attributes for
determining the non-functional characteristics, and their location in the specification.
This template of SRS is presented in the form of ontology. The SRS can have any
structure, any form, but for further evaluating the non-functional characteristics it
should have the values of the attributes from ISO 25023:2016. Exactly these attributes
are in the visual ontology-template as the hints to the user. The fragment of such
ontology-template for SRS is represented on Fig. 3.</p>
          <p>For analysis, the user of developed AOIT must upload the SRS in pdf-format. After
this, the AOIT parses the uploaded specification and on the basis of it generates the
ontology for real software in owl-format, which the user can download for further work.</p>
          <p>After comparing the ontology for real software with base ontology for non-functional
characteristics, the developed AOIT gives the conclusion on the sufficiency of
requirements information, which consists of: the number and percentage of missing
attributes (during this counting, AOIT gives two these numbers – without and with
taking into account how many times the missing attribute is used when the
determination of subcharacteristics of non-functional characteristics (without and with
repetitions)); quantitative assessments of the sufficiency of requirements information for
determining each non-functional characteristic and all non-functional characteristics
together. In addition, the developed AOIT proposes the list of missing attributes in the
form of a list, which is divided by subcharacteristics of non-functional characteristics,
which provides visualization of missing attributes for determining one or another
subcharacteristics of non-functional characteristic.</p>
          <p>For the experiment, three requirements specifications to software for accounting
for the provision of Internet access services, which are developed for ITT Ltd
(Khmelnitsky, Ukraine) by various software companies of Khmelnitsky. These SRS
have approximately the same cost and duration, so the choice of the SRS according to
these criteria is difficult.</p>
          <p>As a result of the analysis of SRS No. 1, the developed AOIT has provided the
following conclusions – Fig. 4, Fig. 5. As a result of the analysis of SRS No. 2, the
developed AOIT has provided the conclusions, which are presented in Fig. 6. After
analysis of the SRS No. 3, the developed AOIT has provided the following
conclusions – Fig. 7.</p>
          <p>The analysis of the results of the developed AOIT confirmed the regularity, which
is identified in [21], that more important and priority are attributes, which impact on
more than one subcharacteristic of non-functional characteristics. So, in SRS No. 1
there are no 21 attributes without considering the number of uses of each attribute
when determining the subcharacteristics of non-functional characteristics (but there
are no 78 attributes, considering the number of uses of each attribute). In SRS No. 2
there are no 37 attributes without considering the number of uses of each attribute
(but there are no 39 attributes, considering the number of uses of each attribute). In
SRS No. 3, there are no 37 attributes without considering the number of uses of each
attribute (but there are no 74 attributes, considering the number of uses of each
attribute). At the same time, the level of sufficiency of requirements information of
SRS No. 1 for determining all non-functional characteristics is 58,23%, the level of
sufficiency of requirements information of SRS No. 2 – 81,26%, the level of
sufficiency of requirements information of SRS No. 3 – 60,85%.</p>
          <p>Thus, with less number of missing attributes (without considering the number of
uses of each attribute), SRS No. 1 has a lower level of information sufficiency than
SRS No. 2, in which more attributes are absent (without considering the number of
uses of each attribute). This situation is explained by the fact that in SRS No. 1 there
is no greater number of attributes (in comparison with the SRS No. 2), which impact
on more than one subcharacteristic of non-functional characteristics. This fact is
proved by the number of missing attributes, which are provided by the AOIT
(considering the number of uses of each attribute).</p>
          <p>In the result of the analysis of the conclusions of the developed AOIT, the
customer of the software for accounting for the provision of Internet access services
(ITT Ltd) decided that the level of sufficiency of the requirements information in all
three SRS isn't acceptable for the transition to further work on the software project.
Therefore, all three SRS were sent back to developers for revision (in part of
supplementing the attributes for determining the non-functional characteristics). The
revised SRS were also analyzed by the developed AOIT. The conclusions of the
AOIT after the analysis of the revised SRS are presented in Fig. 8-10.</p>
          <p>In the SRS No. 1, 5 attributes were added without considering the number of uses
of each attribute in determining the subcharacteristics of non-functional
characteristics (47 attributes, considering the number of uses of each attribute). In
SRS No. 2, 10 attributes were added without considering the number of uses of each
attribute (and 10 attributes, considering the number of uses of each attribute). In SRS
No. 3, 10 attributes were also added without considering the number of uses of each
attribute (25 attributes, considering the number of uses of each attribute). At the same
time, the level of sufficiency of requirements information of the SRS No. 1 for
determining all non-functional characteristics is already 86,02%, the level of
sufficiency of requirements information of the SRS No. 2 – 85,97%, the level of
sufficiency of requirements information of the SRS No. 3 – 73,7%. Consequently, the
conclusions of the developed AOIT for assessing the sufficiency of information at the
initial stages of the software life cycle provide increasing the level of sufficiency of
requirements information for determining the non-functional characteristics,
respectively, by 27,79%, 4,71% and 12,85% for SRS No. 1-3.</p>
          <p>We (the developers of AOIT) recommend the level of sufficiency equal 85% is
acceptable, but the final decision regarding the required level of sufficiency is taken by
the customer of the software. The customer can set a lower threshold of this level, for
example, 90%, 95% or 100% (even for non-critical software). So, in the result of the
analysis of the conclusions of the developed AOIT, ITT Ltd decided that the level of
sufficiency of the requirements information of SRS No.1 and SRS No. 2 is already
accepted for the further work on the software project. ITT Ltd selected SRS No. 1 for
further work. So, the customer was able to make a choice the SRS from the view of its
information’s sufficiency, but not only from the view of its cost and duration.
5</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>At present, the task of automated assessment of the level of elaboration of the initial
stages of the software life cycle based on the analysis of specifications is actual (in
particular, the automated assessment of the sufficiency of requirements information).</p>
      <p>In this paper, the agent-oriented information technology for assessing the sufficiency
of information at the initial stages of the software life cycle was developed. This AOIT
assesses and provides the increase (for example, from 58,23% till 86,02% for SRS No. 1,
from 81,26% till 85,97% for SRS No. 1, from 60,85% till 73,7% for SRS No. 3) of the
level of sufficiency of requirements information for determining software non-functional
characteristics – the gain of the level of suffiiciency is from 4,71% to 27,79%.</p>
      <p>In addition to the above, the advantages of the developed AOIT also are:
1) automation of the time-consuming, routine and error-prone task of parsing the SRS, and
almost instantly accomplishment of it; 2) indication where re-work on SRS is needed (the
user can browse missing attributes and see SRS areas which the extra attention is needed,
and which requirements need re-work); 3) provision of training for new SRS developers,
systems engineers and project managers (using this AOIT helps them see mistakes they
might be making, and helps them recognize those mistakes in others’ work); 4) help of
developing the high-quality requirements; 5) help of correct and eliminate of requirements
errors where they originate – during the early stages of the software project life cycle –
before they become more expensive to correct; 6) provision of the tool for choosing the
more qualitative software requirements specification; 7) free online access, at any time,
without any registration.</p>
      <p>The economic effect of the use of the developed AOIT is the ability to save software
projects' budget for processing and correcting (during the life cycle) defects and bugs,
which are made at the early stages of the life cycle - due to the demonstration of
weaknesses in the SRS, that need to be finalized or re-worked, at a time when they arise.</p>
      <p>The limitations of the developed AOIT are: 1) the assessment of the only sufficiency of
requirements information for determining the non-functional characteristics as the
sufficiency of the attributes in the SRS; 2) consideration of only non-functional
characteristics, which are regimented by ISO 25010 standard as the software quality characteritics;
3) non-consideration the other SQUARE standards of 25000-series (ISO 25011, ISO
25012); 4) during parsing the SRS the search of only attributes, which are defined by ISO
25023as necessary for the non-functional characteristics-components of software quality. For
elimination of these limitations, further efforts of the authors will be directed.
11. Software Requirements Engineering Tools,
http://ecomputernotes.com/softwareengineering/softwarerequirementsengineeringtools, last accessed 2019/02/12.
12. 30 Best Requirements Management Tools in 2019,
https://www.guru99.com/requirementmanagement-tools.html, last accessed 2019/02/12.
13. Top 20+ Best Requirements Management Tools (The Complete List),
https://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/requirements-management-tools/, last accessed 2019/02/12.
14. Verma, K., Kass, A.: Requirements Analysis Tool: A Tool for Automatically Analyzing
Software Requirements Documents. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 5318, 751-763 (2008).
15. Mahmood, H., Rehman, M. S.: Tools for software engineers. International Journal of
Research in Engineering &amp; Technology. 3 (10), 75-86 (2015).
16. Jones., V., Murray, J.: Evaluation of current requirements analysis tools capabilities for
IV&amp;V in the requirements analysis phase,
https://www.slideserve.com/shlomo/evaluationof-current-requirements-analysis-tools-capabilities-for-ivv-in-the-requirements-analysisphase, last accessed 2019/02/12.
17. Raffo, D. M., Ferguson, R.: Evaluating the Impact of The QuARS Requirements Analysis
Tool Using Simulation,
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7e7d/4e6f5ab13d00ca57c87711e30cd080730f34.pdf, last
accessed 2019/02/12.
18. Konig, F., Ballejos, L., Ale, M.: A semi-automatic verification tool for software
requirements specification documents. In: Simposio Argentino de Ingeniería de Software
Proceedings. Sociedad Argentina de Informática e Investigación Operativa (2017).
19. Ossowska, K., Szewc, L., Weichbroth, P., Garnik, I., Sikorski, M.: Exploring an
ontological approach for user requirements elicitation in the design of online virtual agents.
Information Systems: Development, Research, Applications, Education. 264, 40-55 (2017).
20. Freitas, A., Bordini, R. H., Vieira, R.: Model-driven engineering of multi-agent systems
based on ontologies. Applied Ontology. 12 (2), 157-188 (2017).
21. Hovorushchenko, T.: Information Technology for Assurance of Veracity of Quality
Information in the Software Requirements Specification. Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Computing. 689, 166–185 (2018).
22. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011. Systems and software engineering. Life cycle processes.
Requirements engineering (2011).
23. ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering. Systems and software Quality</p>
      <p>Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). System and software quality models (2011).
24. ISO 25023:2016. Systems and software engineering. Systems and software Quality
Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). Measurement of system and software product quality (2016).
25. Hovorushchenko, T., Pavlova, O., Bodnar, M.: Modern Problems of Semantic Analysis of
Software Requirements Specifications. Scientific notes of Taurida National University
after named V. I. Vernadsky: series "Technical Sciences". 30 (269) (2019). [in Ukrainian]
26. Hovorushchenko, T., Pavlova, O.: Method of Activity of Ontology-Based Intelligent
Agent for Evaluating the Initial Stages of the Software Lifecycle. Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Computing. 836, 169-178 (2019).</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hastie</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wojewoda</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          : Standish Group 2015
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Chaos</given-names>
            <surname>Report - Q&amp;A with Jennifer</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lynch</surname>
          </string-name>
          , http://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2015, last accessed
          <year>2019</year>
          /02/12.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>The</given-names>
            <surname>Standish Group Report</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>CHAOS</surname>
          </string-name>
          , https://www.pro jectsmart.co.uk/white-papers/chaosreport.pdf,
          <source>last accessed</source>
          <year>2019</year>
          /02/12.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
            <surname>Look</surname>
          </string-name>
          at 25 Years of Software Projects. What Can We Learn?, https://speedandfunction.com/look-25
          <string-name>
            <surname>-</surname>
          </string-name>
          years
          <article-title>-software-projects-can-learn/</article-title>
          ,
          <source>last accessed</source>
          <year>2019</year>
          /02/12.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>McConnell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Code complete</article-title>
          . Microsoft Press, Redmond (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Levenson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N. G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety</article-title>
          . MIT Press, Massachusetts (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Leveraging</given-names>
            <surname>Natural</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Language Processing in Requirements Analysis: How to eliminate over half of all design errors before they occur</article-title>
          , http://qracorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LeveragingNLP-in
          <source>-Requirements-Analysis.pdf, last accessed</source>
          <year>2019</year>
          /02/12.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cruickshank</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K. J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A validation metrics framework for safety-critical software-intensive systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>Naval Postraduate School</source>
          , Monterey (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Michael</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shing</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cruickshank</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Redmond</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Hazard analysis and validation metrics framework for system of systems software safety</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Systems Journal. 4</source>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>186</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>197</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Baker</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Habli</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>An empirical evaluation of mutation testing for improving the test quality of safety-critical software</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering</source>
          .
          <volume>39</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>787</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>805</lpage>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hovorushchenko</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pomorova</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Information technology of evaluating the sufficiency of information on quality in the software requirements specifications</article-title>
          .
          <source>CEUR-WS</source>
          .
          <volume>2104</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>555</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>570</lpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>