NFR finder artifacts until SBES18

These are the artifacts that support the paper published in SBES 18.

1. By using Catalogs, 4 actors were asked to classify requirements sentences whether NFR or not.
   Each actor classification is a point of view (triangle, square, diamond, oval). Each author had two perspectives to classify NFR . One perspective is to classify NFR by using their own knowledge (data-track.sample-triangle). The other perspective is to classify NFR by using knowledge bases. (e.g. data-track.sample.CAT-triangle)

2. The image (4viewpoint-highlights vs NFRFinder.png) shows the highlights made by the actors (oval, diamond, triangle, rectangle), and the qualifiers identified by NFRfinder.
   A Figure in black is when an actor used a catalog.
   A figure in white is when an actor used his own knowledge

3. POStagging of the sample used
   vb = verbs, jj = adjective, nn= noun

4. Catalogs used
   Oliveira, Romeu. 2014. A Semi-Automated Method for Elicitation of Web Accessibility Requirements. Master’s thesis. DIMAp (UFRN), Natal, Brasil.
   Luiz M. Cysneiros, 2018. Privacy Catalog – General Approach. Retrieved July 14, 2018 from http://www.math.yorku.ca/~cysneiro/nfrs/privacy.htm
   Luiz M. Cysneiros. 2007. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Using Catalogs to Elicit Non-Functional Requirements. In Workshop on Requirements
   Engineering WER. pp. 107-115
   ER-PUC-Rio. 2018. Transparency Catalog. Retrieved July 14, 2018 from http://transparencia.inf.pucrio.br/wiki/index.php/Catálogo_Transparência. Last Access: 7/14/2018.

In Readme some links points to the transparency work performed previous to NFRFinder

NFR finder artifacts until SBES18

These are the artifacts created towards the NFR finder conception, and the artifacts that support the paper published in SBES 18.