In literature, I found many approaches that deal with NFRs including Ontology based approach. I found issues related to ontology engineering viz. merging mapping, expressiveness, among others and issues in NFRs viz. conflict, integrity, etc. but I have some confusion regarding issues in ontology engineering in NFRs elicitation and specification. I am not clear what kind of issues regarding ontology in NFRs that we can consider as a challenging task for research work. Please provide your valuable guidance regarding this. Hopefully waiting for your reply. It will help me a lot.
Thanking you,
Hi, I just sent an email to the main author of this paper. I was not involved in the scientific part of the paper, only with one of the case study from my company. Hopefully you or I will get a reply from Andreas Borg. /Angela
Conjecture: Customers and developers must have “sufficiently equivalent” rich ontologies in a domain of discourse (e.g. flight control) to have meaningful discussions about quality attribute goals (e.g. safety goals, ease of use goals, understandability goals).
Conjecture: If the domain is familiar and the parties are experienced, they are likely to share an ontology.
Questions: What happens when the domain is unfamiliar to both parties (e.g. to determine compliance of prescription drug ads with FDA regulations)? What happens when one or both of the parties are inexperienced? Is meaningful consensus on quality goals possible in these scenarios and under what conditions?
Barry Boehm is working to develop an ontology for quality attributes. Is a single ontology likely to be useful across the spectrum of software applications and organizations or will organization-tailored and project-tailored quality ontologies be more useful? Will something else be more useful?
Hope this helps.
There are tools for automatic ontology merging and mapping like PROMPT, Chimaera. You can connect PROMPT with Protege
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Graphs