The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Four dark corners of requirements engineering
Abstract
Research in requirements engineering has produced an extensive body of knowledge, but there are four areas in which the foundation of the discipline seems weak or obscure. This article shines some light in the “four dark corners,” exposing problems and proposing solutions. We show that all descriptions involved in requirements engineering should be descriptions of the environment. We show that certain control information is necessary for sound requirements engineering, and we explain the close association between domain knowledge and refinement of requirements. Together these conclusions explain the precise nature of requirements, specifications, and domain knowledge, as well as the precise nature of the relationships among them. They establish minimum standards for what information should be represented in a requirements language. They also make it possible to determine exactly what it means for requirements and engineering to be successfully completed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Communicating Sequential Processes
Hoare, T. (1985) · Cited by 9,016
Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems
Harel, D. (1987) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/0167-6423(87)90035-9 · Cited by 6,751
A field study of the software design process for large systems
Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N. (1988) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/50087.50089 · Cited by 2,076
Goal-directed requirements acquisition
Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., & Fickas, S. (1993) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/0167-6423(93)90021-g · Cited by 1,976
Systematic software development using VDM
Jones, C. B. (1986) · Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. eBooks · Cited by 1,715
Communicating Sequential Processes
Hoare, C. A. R. (1978) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3472-0_16 · Cited by 1,426
Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution
Lehman, M. M. (1980) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/proc.1980.11805 · Cited by 1,181
Systematic software development using VDM
Vadera, S. (1986) · Data Processing · doi:10.1016/0011-684x(86)90240-6 · Cited by 1,122
A specifier's introduction to formal methods
Wing, J. M. (1990) · Computer · doi:10.1109/2.58215 · Cited by 736
A rational design process: How and why to fake it
Parnas, D. L., & Clements, P. C. (1986) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.1986.6312940 · Cited by 617
Cited by
A comparison of security requirements engineering methods
Fabian, B., Gürses, S., Heisel, M., Santen, T., & Schmidt, H. (2010) · Requirements Engineering · doi:10.1007/s00766-009-0092-x · Cited by 239
An empirical comparative evaluation of requirements engineering methods
España, S., Condori-Fernandez, N., González, A., & Pastor, Ó. (2010) · Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society · doi:10.1007/s13173-010-0003-5 · Cited by 27
Contextualized achievement of Engineer's competences for sustainable development
Urrego-Giraldo, G., & Giraldo G, G. L. (2014) · 2014 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon.2014.6826172 · Cited by 3
Esnaola, L. M., Ramón, H. D., & Lanzarini, L. C. (2026) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-026-10813-7 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Zave, P., & Jackson, M.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-30
- ISSN
- 1049-331X (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7392
- OpenAlex
- W2113435553
- Cited by
- 734
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 57.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Four dark corners of requirements engineering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/237432.237434
- The paper
- Zave, P., & Jackson, M. (1997). Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1145/237432.237434
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
