NFRsTDO v1.2's Terms, Properties, and Relationships -- A Top-Domain Non-Functional Requirements Ontology
Authors:
Luis Olsina,
María Fernanda Papa,
Pablo Becker
Abstract:
This preprint specifies and defines all the Terms, Properties, and Relationships of NFRsTDO (Non-Functional Requirements Top-Domain Ontology). NFRsTDO v1.2, whose UML conceptualization is shown in Figure 1 is a slightly updated version of its predecessor, namely NFRsTDO v1.1. NFRsTDO is an ontology mainly devoted to quality (non-functional) requirements and quality/cost views, which is placed at t…
▽ More
This preprint specifies and defines all the Terms, Properties, and Relationships of NFRsTDO (Non-Functional Requirements Top-Domain Ontology). NFRsTDO v1.2, whose UML conceptualization is shown in Figure 1 is a slightly updated version of its predecessor, namely NFRsTDO v1.1. NFRsTDO is an ontology mainly devoted to quality (non-functional) requirements and quality/cost views, which is placed at the top-domain level in the context of a multilayer ontological architecture called FCD-OntoArch (Foundational, Core, Domain, and instance Ontological Architecture for sciences). Figure 2 depicts its five tiers, which entail Foundational, Core, Top-Domain, Low-Domain, and Instance. Each level is populated with ontological components or, in other words, ontologies. Ontologies at the same level can be related to each other, except at the foundational level, where only ThingFO (Thing Foundational Ontology) is found. In addition, ontologies' terms and relationships at lower levels can be semantically enriched by ontologies' terms and relationships from the higher levels. NFRsTDO's terms and relationships are mainly extended/reused from ThingFO, SituationCO (Situation Core Ontology), ProcessCO (Process Core Ontology), and FRsTDO (Functional Requirements Top-Domain Ontology). Stereotypes are the used mechanism for enriching NFRsTDO terms. Note that annotations of updates from the previous version (NFRsTDO v1.1) to the current one (v1.2) can be found in Appendix A.
△ Less
Submitted 2 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
Designing Quality Requirements, Metrics and Indicators for Core Ontologies: Results of a Comparative Study for Process Core Ontologies
Authors:
Luis Olsina,
Maria Fernanda Papa,
Guido Tebes,
Pablo Becker
Abstract:
This preprint specifies quality requirements for a core ontology whose ontological elements such as terms, non-taxonomic relationships, among others, are based on a foundational ontology. The quality requirements are represented in a quality model that is structured in the form of a requirements tree composed of characteristics and attributes to be measured and evaluated. An attribute represents a…
▽ More
This preprint specifies quality requirements for a core ontology whose ontological elements such as terms, non-taxonomic relationships, among others, are based on a foundational ontology. The quality requirements are represented in a quality model that is structured in the form of a requirements tree composed of characteristics and attributes to be measured and evaluated. An attribute represents an atomic aspect of an entity, that is, an elementary non-functional requirement that can be measured by a direct or indirect metric and evaluated by an elementary indicator. In contrast, characteristics that model less atomic aspects of an entity cannot be measured by metrics, but rather are evaluated by derived indicators generally modeled by an aggregation function. Therefore, this preprint shows the design of direct and indirect metrics in addition to the design of elementary indicators, which are used to implement measurement and evaluation activities to obtain the results of a quality requirements tree. In particular, this document shows the applicability of the designed metrics and indicators that are used by a evaluation and comparison strategy. Two process core ontologies were preselected, evaluated and compared in order to adopt strengths in the target entity named ProcessCO. The data and information resulting from this study are also recorded, as well as the outcomes of the revaluation after improvement of the target entity.
△ Less
Submitted 1 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
