Abstract

The automated generation of sequence of actions and schema extraction from requirements specification text written in natural language is really challenging and has limited explorations so far. It’s an attempt to automatically retrieving some useful elements from the requirements specification text, which is required for the software development process. This study proposes a system to simplify requirements analysis process and identify the interaction between the class objects using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques and crafted rules. The Automatic Domain Knowledge Extraction (ADKE) system does the step by step elicitation of classes, attributes, relationships, actors, relational schema, use cases and interaction between the classes. Finally deploys relational schema into the database, which allows user to acquire domain knowledge by applying queries and quick traceability link between the use cases. The experimental results of ADKE system are compared with other available tools and it gives better accuracy also.

Keywords:

Key attributes, natural language processing, sequence of actions, relational schema,

References

1. Adelfio, M.D. and H. Samet, 2013. Schema extraction for tabular data on the web. Proc. VLDB Endowment, 6(6): 421-432.
   CrossRef    
2. Anandha Mala, G.S. and G.V. Uma, 2006. Automatic Construction of Object Oriented Design Models [UML diagrams] from Natural Language Requirements Specification. In: Yang, Q. and G. Webb (Eds.), PRICAI 2006: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 4099: 1155-1159.
   
3. Bajwa, I.S. and M.A. Choudhary, 2012. From Natural Language Software Specifications to UML Class Models. In: Zhang, R. et al. (Eds.), Enterprise Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 102: 224-237.
   CrossRef    
4. Brill, E., 1992. A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. Proceeding of the 3rd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLC, 1992), pp: 152-155.
   CrossRef    
5. Delisle, S., K. Barker and I. Biskri, 1999. Object-Oriented Analysis: Getting Help from Robust Computational Linguistic Tools. In: Friedl, G. and H.C. Mayr (Eds.), Application of Natural Language to Information Systems, Oesterreichische Computer Gesellschaft, Vienna, Austria, pp: 167-172.
   
6. Divesh, S., 2010. Schema extraction. Proceeding of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'10). ACM, New York, pp: 3-4.
   
7. Harmain, H.M. and R. Gaizauskas, 2003. CM-builder: A natural language-based CASE tool for object-oriented analysis. Automat. Softw. Eng., 10(2): 157-181.
   CrossRef    
8. Hina, A. and S.B. Imran, 2011. Generating UML class models from SBVR software requirements specifications. Proceeding of the 23rd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC, 2011). Gent, Belgium, pp: 23-32.
   
9. Jekub, P. and Y. Roman, 2013. Information Extraction: Past, Present and Future. In: Poibeau, T., H. Saggion, J. Piskorski and R. Yangarber (Eds.), Multi-source Multilingual Information Extraction and Summarization. Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 23-49.
   
10. Jitendra, S.T. and G. Atul, 2014. Automatic generation of sequence diagram from use case specification. Proceeding of the ACM 7th India Software Engineering Conference, New York, USA.
    PMid:25312518    
11. Kate, R.J. and R.J. Mooney, 2010. Joint entity and relation extraction using card-pyramid parsing. Proceeding of the 14th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL, 2010), pp: 203-212.
    
12. Li, L., 2000. Translating use cases to sequence diagrams. Proceeding of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE '00), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, USA, pp: 293.
    
13. Mirzanur, R., D. Sufal and S. Utpal, 2009. Parsing of part-of-speech tagged assamese texts. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues, 6(1): 28-34.
    
14. Mitkov, R., 1998. Robust pronoun resolution with limited knowledge. Proceeding of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'98)/ACL'98 Conference. Montreal, Canada, pp: 869-875.
    CrossRef    
15. Overmyer, S.P., L. Benoit and R. Owen, 2001. Conceptual modeling through linguistic analysis using LIDA. Proceeding of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp: 401-410.
    CrossRef    
16. Ramshaw, L.A. and M.P. Marcus, 1995. Text chunking using transformation-based learning. Proceeding of the 3rd Annual Workshop on Very Large Corpora, pp: 82-94.
    
17. Sismanis, Y., P. Brown, P.J. Haas and B. Reinwald, 2006. GORDIAN: Efficient and scalable discovery of composite keys. Proceeding of the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB, 2006). ACM, Seoul, Korea, pp: 691-702.
    
18. Xian-Yi, C., C. Xiao-Hong and H. Jin, 2011. The Overview of Entity Relation Extraction Methods. In: Chen, R. (Ed.), Intelligent Computing and Information Science. Communications in Computer and Information Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 134: 749-754.
    CrossRef    
19. Yue, T., L.C. Braind and Y. Labiche, 2010. Automatically deriving UML sequence diagrams from use cases. Technical Report, TR-SCE-10-03, Carleton University, Canada, pp: 1-56.
    
20. Zhang, M., M. Hadjieleftheriou, B.C. Ooi, C.M. Procopiuc and D. Srivastava, 2012. Automatic discovery of attributes in relational databases. Proceeding of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, ACM, New York, pp: 109-120.
    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.