CORE: Solving the Selection Paralysis in Requirements Engineering through Community Ontologies

TL;DR

The Requirements Engineering (RE) landscape is saturated with tools, yet practitioners lack a "GPS" to navigate them. This paper introduces the CORE initiative, a community-driven effort to build a comprehensive ontology of RE approaches. By mapping methods onto two axes—Lifecycle Phase and Maturity (TRL)—the project aims to turn a chaotic toolbox into a structured, interoperable ecosystem.

Background: The RE Selection Dilemma

In professional software developments, the success of a project often hinges on the quality of requirements. However, there is no "one size fits all" approach. The field faces a paradoxical challenge: we have a plethora of techniques (Elicitation, Goal Modeling, etc.), but practitioners are often unable to frame their specific problems or justify why they chose one method over another. This work positions itself as the "theoretical glue" needed to connect abstract RE research with pragmatic industrial application.

The "Mapping Gap" and Research Motivation

The authors argue that the primary deficiency in RE today isn't a lack of methods, but a lack of structure. Current practice is hindered by:

• Invisibility of Interconnectivity: How does the output of a "Goal Model" feed into a "Feature Specification"?
• Uncertain Maturity: Is a new academic tool ready for a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project?
• Functional Gaps: Are there stages in the requirements lifecycle where we currently have zero reliable techniques?

Methodology: Crowdsourcing the "Map"

To solve this, the authors propose a Grounded Theory approach fueled by conference-based crowdsourcing. The CORE framework evaluates approaches based on:

1. Lifecycle Positioning: Where does the tool fit? (e.g., Elicitation, Analysis, Specification, Validation).
2. Maturity (TRLs): Adapted from NASA’s Technology Readiness Levels, this ranks a method from "basic principles" to "proven in operational environments."
3. Input/Output Analysis: By documenting what each approach consumes and produces, the ontology creates a "flowchart" of RE practices.

(Note: This conceptual map visualizes how approaches are plotted against Lifecycle and TRL axes to identify "empty spaces" in the research landscape.)

Preliminary Findings: Engagement is Key

Reflecting on a failed experiment at RE13 and a successful one at REFSQ 2019, the authors highlight a critical insight: Active facilitation is mandatory. When experts were guided through a 40-minute collaborative session, they successfully produced a mapping of ~70 diverse perspectives.

The pilot study revealed that while the two-dimensional plot (Lifecycle vs. TRL) is effective, the community still debates the "scales" of measurement—indicating that the definition of "maturity" in software requirements is still a moving target.

(Note: This figure from the paper represents the initial collaborative output from the REFSQ industry session, showing the clustering of RE tools.)

Critical Analysis & Future Outlook

The CORE initiative represents a shift toward more evidence-based RE. By treating the RE process as a set of interconnected modules with defined interfaces (Inputs/Outputs), the community can finally:

• Identify Gaps: If no output from "Analysis" fits into "Validation," we have an industry-wide workflow break.
• Reduce Overlap: Stop reinventing tools that perform the same function at the same maturity level.

Limitations: The primary risk lies in the "crowd" itself. Ontologies require long-term maintenance. If the community momentum fades, the map becomes an artifact of the past rather than a living guide for the future.

Conclusion: As software systems become increasingly complex (AI, Cyber-Physical Systems), the ability to choose the right requirements approach is more important than ever. CORE provides the structural foundation for this selection process, moving RE from an "art" toward a more disciplined "engineering" science.