An empirical investigation of the comprehensibility of requirements specifications

Deirdre Carew, Chris Exton, Jim Buckley

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

Abstract

It is a commonly held view by Software Engineers that informal requirements specifications are easier to comprehend than formal requirements specifications. Moreover, the training time required to gain a sufficient level of understanding informal notations is unknown. This paper presents an empirical study carried out to compare the comprehensibility of two specifications, a formal specification and an informal (or semi-formal) specification, in an attempt to quantify the amount of training needed to understand formal methods. The two specifications used implemented the same logic, namely a portion of the Irish Electoral System. The "informal" specification was taken directly from the legal definition of the count rules for Irish elections, and the formal specification was an implementation of the same in CafeOBJ. Both Quantitative and Qualitative data was collected. Although participants had received twenty-five hours training in formal methods, the results show that the informal specification was more comprehendible than the formal specification.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publication2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2005
Pages256-265
Number of pages10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005
Event2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2005 - Queensland, Australia
Duration: 17 Nov 200518 Nov 2005

Publication series

Name2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2005

Conference

Conference2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2005
Country/TerritoryAustralia
CityQueensland
Period17/11/0518/11/05

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'An empirical investigation of the comprehensibility of requirements specifications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this