549:
required. For artifacts that have more than 2 but less than 3 corrections of validated artifact to fix defects and eliminate information loss is required, however review of original artifact to find out if there any vague piece of information that cause misunderstandings is recommended. No additional RST sessions is needed. If the average mark is more than 3 but less than 4 then corrections of validated artifact to remove defects and insignificant information loss is supposed. If the mark is greater than 4 it means that artifact is of good quality and no special corrections or rework is required.
66:
136:
25:
504:
Project manager defines what documents will be an input for RST session. For example, it can be not only an artifact to restore but some background project information. It is recommended to give to reverse engineers number of words in original text so that they have an idea about amount of text they
281:
team deals with customer’s requirements and expectations expressed in natural language. These customer requirements sometimes might be incomplete, vague or even contradictory to each other. The first step is specification and formalization of customer expectations, transition (“translation”) of them
548:
If the average RST quality level is in range from 1 to 2 the quality of artifact is poor and it is recommended not only rework of validated artifact to eliminate defects but corrections of original artifact to clear misunderstandings. In this case one more RST session after rework of artifacts is
520:
For assessment a group of experts is formed. Experts should be aware of project domain and be an experienced enough to assess quality level of compared artifacts. For example, business analysts will be experts for comparison of vision statement and restored vision statement from scenario.
381:
Reverse
Semantic Traceability as a validation method can be applied to any project artifact, to any part of project artifact or even to a small piece of document or code. However, it is obvious that performing RST for all artifacts can create
414:
First of all project manager should create a list of all artifacts project team will have during the project. They could be presented as a tree with dependencies and relationships. Artifacts can be present in one occurrence (like
544:
Each of experts gives his assessment, and then the average value is calculated. Depending on this value
Project Manager makes a decision should both artifacts be corrected or one of them or rework is not required.
516:
To complete RST session, restored and original texts of artifact should be compared and quality of artifact should be assessed. Decision about artifacts rework and its amount is made based on this assessment.
319:
Validating model changes for a new requirement: given an original and changed versions of a model, quality engineers restore the textual description of the requirement, original and restored descriptions are
505:
should get as a result: it can be one sentence or several pages of text. Though, the restored text may not contain the same number of words as original text nevertheless the values should be comparable.
290:
written in a very formal programming language. There is always a threat of inserting mistakes, misinterpreting or losing something during the translation. Even a small defect in requirement or
471:
Level of quality control is a measure that defines amount of verification and validation activities applied to artifact, and probability of miscommunication during artifact creation.
419:) or in several occurrences (like risks or bugs). This list can be changed later during the project but the idea behind the decisions about RST activities will be the same.
371:
484:
Excellent (4): Pair development, peer review and/or testing are done, automation or unit testing is done, or there are some tools for artifact development and validation.
475:
Low (1): No review is supposed for the artifact, miscommunication and information loss are high probable, information channel is distributed, language barrier exists etc.
297:
can cause huge amounts of defects at the late stages of the project. Sometimes such misunderstandings can lead to project failure or complete customer dissatisfaction.
95:
478:
Medium (2): No review is supposed for the artifact, information channel is not distributed (e.g. creator of artifact and information provider are members of one team)
153:
38:
552:
Obviously the final decision about rework of artifacts is made by project manager and should be based on analysis of reasons of differences in texts.
508:
After that reverse engineers take the artifact and restore the original text from it. RST itself takes about 1 hour for one page text (750 words).
467:
Low (4): the artifact has insignificant impact to the final product quality. Example: employees’ tasks, cosmetic bugs, risks with low probability.
200:
172:
338:
into a team: a new team member gets an assignment to do
Reverse Semantic Traceability for the key artifacts from the current projects.
44:
434:
Importance of document is the degree of artifact impact to project success and quality of final product. It’s measured by the scale:
277:
Each stage of development process can be treated as a series of “translations” from one language to another. At the very beginning a
179:
237:
219:
117:
52:
408:. Also it depends on importance of particular artifact for project success and level of quality control applied to this artifact.
438:
Crucial (1): the quality of deliverable is very important for overall quality of project and even for project success. Examples:
262:
186:
501:
Reverse
Semantic Traceability starts when decision that RST should be performed is made and resources for it are available.
331:, quality engineers restore a textual description of the bug that was fixed, original and restored descriptions are compared.
157:
313:
168:
266:
370:
78:
88:
82:
74:
386:
and should be well justified (for example, for medical software where possible information loss is very critical).
146:
626:
621:
305:
99:
616:
193:
439:
561:
443:
394:
383:
283:
534:
Restored and original texts have some differences in meaning, some insignificant information loss
481:
Sufficient (3): Pair development or peer review is done, information channel is not distributed.
460:
Medium (3): the artifact has a medium or indirect impact to quality of final product. Examples:
282:
into a formal requirement document for the future system. Then requirements are translated into
528:
Restored and original texts have quite big differences in meaning and crucial information loss
402:
335:
416:
390:
309:
291:
258:
574:
531:
Restored and original texts have some differences in meaning, important information loss
454:
446:, critical bug fixes (show stoppers), risks with high probability and critical impact.
610:
493:
Success of RST session strongly depends on correct assignment of responsible people.
294:
287:
601:
461:
324:
575:
The Babel
Experiment: An Advanced Pantomime-based Training in OOA&OOD with UML
428:
328:
135:
596:
537:
Restored and original texts are very close, some insignificant information loss
449:
High (2): the deliverable has an impact to quality of final product. Examples:
431:
importance for project and level of quality control for each project artifact.
411:
Amount of RST sessions for project is defined at the project planning stage.
450:
398:
300:
The highest usage scenarios of
Reverse Semantic Traceability method can be:
579:
36th 'ACM Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIG CSE 2005)
261:
method for verification improvement that helps to insure high quality of
278:
405:
540:
Restored and original texts are very close, none information is lost
457:
requirements, major severity bug fixes, risks with high expose.
129:
59:
18:
591:
464:, medium severity bug fixes, risks with medium expose.
351:
authors of project artifacts (both input and output),
397:”. This amount depends on project specific details:
393:
to decide what amount of project artifacts will be “
377:
Define all project artifacts and their relationship
160:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
316:, original and restored descriptions are compared.
497:Perform Reverse Semantic Traceability of artifact
87:but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
512:Value the level of quality and make a decision
265:by backward translation at each stage of the
8:
286:and step by step the project team generates
53:Learn how and when to remove these messages
238:Learn how and when to remove this message
220:Learn how and when to remove this message
118:Learn how and when to remove this message
347:Main roles involved in RST session are:
389:It is a responsibility of company and
7:
573:Vladimir Pavlov and Anton Yatsenko,
327:fix: given an original and modified
158:adding citations to reliable sources
312:restore a textual description of a
14:
34:This article has multiple issues.
369:
134:
64:
23:
597:P-Modeling Framework Whitepaper
169:"Reverse semantic traceability"
145:needs additional citations for
42:or discuss these issues on the
427:The second step is to analyze
1:
251:Reverse semantic traceability
401:matrix, project and company
267:software development process
581:, St Louis (Missouri, USA).
643:
592:Vladimir L. Pavlov website
524:RST assessment criteria:
489:Define responsible people
16:Quality control technique
73:This article includes a
440:Functional requirements
102:more precise citations.
602:P-Modeling Framework
562:P-Modeling Framework
154:improve this article
444:System architecture
284:system architecture
395:reverse engineered
354:reverse engineers,
273:Brief introduction
75:list of references
403:quality assurance
336:software engineer
310:quality engineers
248:
247:
240:
230:
229:
222:
204:
128:
127:
120:
57:
634:
627:Software quality
622:Software testing
373:
360:project manager.
334:Integrating new
243:
236:
225:
218:
214:
211:
205:
203:
162:
138:
130:
123:
116:
112:
109:
103:
98:this article by
89:inline citations
68:
67:
60:
49:
27:
26:
19:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
632:
631:
617:Quality control
607:
606:
588:
570:
558:
514:
499:
491:
425:
417:Vision document
391:project manager
379:
367:
345:
275:
259:quality control
244:
233:
232:
231:
226:
215:
209:
206:
163:
161:
151:
139:
124:
113:
107:
104:
93:
79:related reading
69:
65:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
640:
638:
630:
629:
624:
619:
609:
608:
605:
604:
599:
594:
587:
586:External links
584:
583:
582:
569:
566:
565:
564:
557:
554:
542:
541:
538:
535:
532:
529:
513:
510:
498:
495:
490:
487:
486:
485:
482:
479:
476:
469:
468:
465:
458:
455:User interface
447:
424:
421:
378:
375:
366:
363:
362:
361:
358:
355:
352:
344:
341:
340:
339:
332:
321:
317:
295:specifications
274:
271:
246:
245:
228:
227:
142:
140:
133:
126:
125:
83:external links
72:
70:
63:
58:
32:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
639:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
614:
612:
603:
600:
598:
595:
593:
590:
589:
585:
580:
576:
572:
571:
567:
563:
560:
559:
555:
553:
550:
546:
539:
536:
533:
530:
527:
526:
525:
522:
518:
511:
509:
506:
502:
496:
494:
488:
483:
480:
477:
474:
473:
472:
466:
463:
459:
456:
452:
448:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
432:
430:
422:
420:
418:
412:
409:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
387:
385:
376:
374:
372:
364:
359:
357:expert group,
356:
353:
350:
349:
348:
342:
337:
333:
330:
326:
323:Validating a
322:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
298:
296:
293:
289:
285:
280:
272:
270:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
242:
239:
224:
221:
213:
210:November 2017
202:
199:
195:
192:
188:
185:
181:
178:
174:
171: –
170:
166:
165:Find sources:
159:
155:
149:
148:
143:This article
141:
137:
132:
131:
122:
119:
111:
108:November 2017
101:
97:
91:
90:
84:
80:
76:
71:
62:
61:
56:
54:
47:
46:
41:
40:
35:
30:
21:
20:
578:
551:
547:
543:
523:
519:
515:
507:
503:
500:
492:
470:
462:Project plan
433:
426:
413:
410:
388:
380:
368:
346:
299:
276:
254:
250:
249:
234:
216:
207:
197:
190:
183:
176:
164:
152:Please help
147:verification
144:
114:
105:
94:Please help
86:
50:
43:
37:
36:Please help
33:
429:deliverable
365:RST process
329:source code
304:Validating
100:introducing
611:Categories
568:References
451:Test cases
423:Prioritize
180:newspapers
39:improve it
399:trade-off
343:RST roles
320:compared.
263:artifacts
45:talk page
556:See also
406:policies
384:overhead
308:models:
279:project
257:) is a
194:scholar
96:improve
314:domain
292:design
196:
189:
182:
175:
167:
201:JSTOR
187:books
81:, or
288:code
173:news
325:bug
306:UML
255:RST
156:by
613::
577:,
453:,
442:,
269:.
85:,
77:,
48:.
253:(
241:)
235:(
223:)
217:(
212:)
208:(
198:·
191:·
184:·
177:·
150:.
121:)
115:(
110:)
106:(
92:.
55:)
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
