首页> 外文会议>IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference >Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements
【24h】

Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements

机译:确定和分类监管要求的歧义

获取原文

摘要

Software engineers build software systems in increasingly regulated environments, and must therefore ensure that software requirements accurately represent obligations described in laws and regulations. Prior research has shown that graduate-level software engineering students are not able to reliably determine whether software requirements meet or exceed their legal obligations and that professional software engineers are unable to accurately classify cross-references in legal texts. However, no research has determined whether software engineers are able to identify and classify important ambiguities in laws and regulations. Ambiguities in legal texts can make the difference between requirements compliance and non-compliance. Herein, we develop a ambiguity taxonomy based on software engineering, legal, and linguistic understandings of ambiguity. We examine how 17 technologists and policy analysts in a graduate-level course use this taxonomy to identify ambiguity in a legal text. We also examine the types of ambiguities they found and whether they believe those ambiguities should prevent software engineers from implementing software that complies with the legal text. Our research suggests that ambiguity is prevalent in legal texts. In 50 minutes of examination, participants in our case study identified on average 33.47 ambiguities in 104 lines of legal text using our ambiguity taxonomy as a guideline. Our analysis suggests (a) that participants used the taxonomy as intended: as a guide and (b) that the taxonomy provides adequate coverage (97.5%) of the ambiguities found in the legal text.
机译:软件工程师在越来越多的环境中构建软件系统,因此必须确保软件要求准确地代表法律法规所描述的义务。现有研究表明,研究生级软件工程学生无法可靠地确定软件需求是否满足或超出其法律义务,并且专业的软件工程师无法准确地分类法律文本的交叉引用。但是,没有研究软件工程师是否能够识别和分类法律法规的重要歧义。法律文本的歧义可以在要求遵守和不合规之间的差异。在此,我们基于软件工程,法律和语言理解的歧义,开发了一个歧义分类。我们研究了17家技术人员和政策分析师在研究生级课程中如何使用该分类法在法律文本中识别歧义。我们还研究了他们发现的含糊不点的类型,他们是否相信这些歧义应该防止软件工程师实施符合法律文本的软件。我们的研究表明,法律文本中的歧义普遍存在。在50分钟的考试中,我们的案例研究中的参与者在104行的法律文本中平均确定了33.47条含量的歧义,使用我们的歧义分类为指导。我们的分析表明,参与者将分类法如预期的方式使用:作为指导和(b)分类法提供了法律案文中发现的足够覆盖率(97.5%)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号