Intentions of use and quality attributes: a link that helps deriving requirements

Recording information about the relationship between the intentions of use (provided by end-users and their representatives) and the quality attributes (understandable by experts in geomatics) has been outlined above (see Section 4.2.1).

We propose here a possible modeling format of the proposed association index. Modeling format could be, for example, XML schema or ontology (15). The index may be presented to end-users and stakeholders through an appropriate representation (i.e. graphical vs. formal) in respect to their expertise level (14). This would facilitate requirements derivation and help focusing on aligning needs and specifications. In Figure 12, the index is represented by the “Mapping Index” component.

98

Figure 12 illustrates an implementation of our Collaborative User-Centered Approach. The end-user has access to the Web 2.0 collaborative platform and defines his intentions of use through a Wiki, a Forum and an Instant Messaging system. He also, graphically, expresses his usage purposes using the graphical modeling tool (i.e. Perceptory). These elicitated requirements constitute the contextual information to be recorded with regards to the Usage Context Model. The recorded requirements are then mapped to their corresponding metadata forming what we call a Mapping Index. Providing such facilities (i.e. mapping index, graphical modeling tools, and usage context model) facilitates early involvement of end-users in geospatial data design. In fact, these facilities allow a larger number of users to contribute to requirements definition (via the Web 2.0), provide them with an easy-to-use requirements representation tool to better define the scope of their needs (e.g. Usage Context Model) and help derive specifications from these needs (e.g. Mapping Index) as well as context-sensitive warnings if desired and richer user manuals.

4.6 Conclusion

This paper presented an analysis of the geospatial database design process based on RE guidelines with the objective of outlining the steps where end-users involvement may be relevant in terms of detecting new requirements and improving existing ones. We presented, based on the RE sub-domain, an analysis of the role that end-users should play to help identifying and describing requirements. Referring to RE guidelines is important, since it establishes a set of principles to be respected in relation to user involvement in defining requirements. We then described how intentions of use and warnings about potential misuses can be captured and recorded, in terms of purposes, within a specific context model.

Our long-term research objective is to improve, through a participative process, the knowledge about risks related to inappropriate usage of geospatial data. The RE- based analysis performed in this paper shows that early involvement of end-users in geospatial data design by providing him with conceptual (e.g. usage context model) and technical (e.g. mapping index, user-centered and purpose-oriented graphical

99 modeling tools) facilities is valuable for detecting new requirements and improving existing ones. It helped understand the impact of capturing and incorporating the intentions of use early in the design process. Future research would explore in detail the different aspects of the iterative process and its role in detecting risky issues.

References

Agumya, A., Hunter, G.J., 1999. A Risk-Based Approach to Assessing the ‘Fitness for Use’ of Spatial Data, URISA Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 33-44.

Aoyama, M.: Persona-and-scenario based requirements engineering for software embedded in digital consumer products. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int. Req. Eng. Conf., pp. 85–94 (2005)

Berry, D., Kamsties, E.: Ambiguity in Requirements Specification. In: Perspectives on Software Requirements, ch. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2004)

Brodeur, J., Bédard, Y., Edwards, G., Moulin, B.: Revisiting the Concept of Geospatial Data Interoperability within the Scope of Human Communication Processes. Transactions in GIS 7(2), 243–265 (2003)

Chandler, A., Levitt, K.: Spatial Data Quality: The Duty to Warn Users of Risks Associated with Using Spatial Data 49(1), 79–106 (2011), Alberta L. Review

Chandler, A.: Harmful Information: Negligence Liability for Incorrect Information. Short Note in R. Devillers and H. Goodchild, SDQ: From Process to Decisions. CRC Press (2010)

Chen, S., Li, Y.: Visual Modeling and Representations of Spatiotemporal Transportation Data: An Object-Oriented Approach. In: ISCSS, pp. 218–222 (2011)

Cheng, H.C., Atlee, J.M.: Research Directions in Requirements Engineering. In: Briand, L., Wolf, A.L. (eds.) Future of Software Engineering. IEEE-CS Press (2007)

100

Faily, S. 2011. Bridging User-Centered Design and Requirements Engineering with GRL and Persona Cases. In: Proceedings of the 5th International i* Workshop, p. 114– 119.

Feather, M. S. 2004. Towards a unified approach to the representation of, and reasoning with, probabilistic risk information about software and its system interface. In Software Reliability Engineering, 2004. ISSRE 2004. p. 391-402.

Fonseca, F. T., Egenhofer, M. J., Agouris, P., & Câmara, G. (2002). Using ontologies for integrated geographic information systems. Transactions in GIS,6(3), 231-257.

Gervais M., Y. Bédard, R. Jeansoulin& B. Cervelle, 2007, Qualité des données géographiques. Obligations juridiques potentielles et modèle du producteur raisonnable, Revue Internationale de Géomatique, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 33-62

Gervais, M.: Élaboration d’une stratégie de gestion du risque juridique découlant de la fourniture de données géographiques numériques. PhD thesis, Laval Univ (2003) Grira, J., Bédard, Y., Roche, S.: Spatial Data Uncertainty in the VGI World: going from Consumer to Producer. Geomatica, 64(1), 61–71 (2009)

Hull, E., Jackson, K., Dick, J.: Requirements Engineering, 3rd edn. Springer (2011) ISO-TC/211. Geographic Information - Quality principles 19113 (2002)

Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press (2011) Kitamura, M., Hasegawa, R., Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: A Supporting Tool for Requirements Elicitation Using a Domain Ontology. Comm. Computer & Info Sci. 22(pt. 2) (2009) Ko, J., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Burnett, M., Erwig, M., Scaffidi, C., Lawrance, J., Lieberman, H., Myers, B., Rosson, M.B., Rothemel, G., Shaw, M., Wiedenbeck, S.: The state of the art in end user Software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys (2011)

101 Konrad, S., Gall, M.: Requirements Engineering in the Development of Large-Scale Systems. In: Proc. of the 16th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf., September 8- 12 (2008)

Levesque, M.-A., Bédard, Y., Gervais, M., Devillers, R.: Towards managing the risks of data misuse for spatial datacubes. In: Proc. of the 5th ISSDQ, Enschede, Netherlands, June 13-15 (2007)

Maiden, N., Robertson, S.: Integrating creativity into requirements processes: experiences with an air traffic management system. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int. Req. Eng. Conf. (2005)

Nalon, F. R., Braga, J. L., Borges, K. A. D. V., & Andrade, M. V. A. (2011). Applying the Model Driven Architecture Approach for Geographic Database Design using a UML Profile and ISO Standards. Journal of Information and Data Management, 2(2), 171. Nuseibeh, B.A., Easterbrook, S.M.: Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap. In: Finkelstein, A.C.W. (ed.) The Future of Software Engineering. Computer Society Press (2000)

Omoronyia, I., Sindre, G., Stålhane, T., Biffl, S., Moser, T., Sunindyo, W.: A Domain Ontology Building Process for Guiding Requirements Elicitation. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

Pohl, K.: Requirements engineering - fundamentals, principles, techniques. Springer (2010)

Public Protection and Ethical Dissemination of Geospatial Data - Social and Legal Aspects. Examples of geospatial data misuse: http://dataquality.scg.ulaval.ca/

Ryan, K.: The role of natural language in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, San Diego, CA, pp. 240–242. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)

102

Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: Traceability in viewpoint merging: a model management perspective. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, pp. 44–49 (2005)

Sboui, T., & Bédard, Y. (2012). Universal Geospatial Ontology for the Semantic Interoperability of Data: What are the Risks and How. Universal Ontology of Geographic Space: Semantic Enrichment for Spatial Data, 1.

Sharp, H., Finkelstein, A., Galal, G.: Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Work. on Data. & Expert Syst. App. (1999)

Shibaoka, M., Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: GOORE: Goal-Oriented and Ontology Driven Requirements Elicitation Method. In: Hainaut, J.-L., Rundensteiner, E.A., Kirchberg, M., Bertolotto, M., Brochhausen, M., Chen, Y.-P.P., Cherfi, S.S.-S., Doerr, M., Han, H., Hartmann, S., Parsons, J., Poels, G., Rolland, C., Trujillo, J., Yu, E., Zimányie, E. (eds.) ER Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4802, pp. 225–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

Sikora, E., Tenbergen, B., Pohl, K.: Industry needs and research directions in requirements engineering for embedded systems. Requirements Engineering 17(1), 57–78 (2012)

Sutcliffe, A.: User-Centered Requirements Engineering. Springer (2002)

Van, T., Lamsweerde, V.A., Massonet, P., Ponsard, C.: Goal-oriented requirements animation. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int. Req. Eng. Conf (RE), pp. 218–228 (2004)

Wasson, K.S.: A case study in systematic improvement of language for requirements. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int. Req. Eng. Conf. (RE), pp. 6–15 (2006)

103

Chapter 5: Risk Analysis Within the Context of Geospatial Database