## 5 Case Study: Detecting Fault-Prone Software Requirements Specification for Edge/Cloud Application
### Analysis of Fault-Prone Edge/Cloud Application Software Requirements Specification
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SRS Classification**} \\ \cline{2-4}
**Title** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Expert** \\ **Evaluation** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Fault-Prone SRS Detection** \\ **Model** \\ \end{tabular} & **Equal** \\ \hline OpenFaaS–Serverless Functions Made Simple & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline Terraform—Infrastructure as Code & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline Prometheus—Monitoring and Alerting & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline Docker & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline Amazon EC2 & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline MedStack & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline User Profiling in social media & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline CloudMedX & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline BookingsPlus & Clean & Clean & Yes \\ \hline Kubernetes—Automated Container & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ Management & & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Istio–Connect Secure Control and Observe & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Cloud Foundry & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline OpenStack & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline OpenMRS & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline CareKit & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Athena Health & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Booking\$ync & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Roomzilla & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Appoint & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Bookeo & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Schoology & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline ClassDojo & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline HotelTonight & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Cloud based Inventory Management System & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Cloud based File Sharing System & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Cloud Based Hotel Management System & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Cloud Based Library Management System & Fault-prone & Fault-prone & Yes \\ \hline Reservio & Clean & Fault-prone & No \\ \hline RoomKey & Fault-prone & Clean & No \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Comparison of SRS Classification. To achieve this, we utilized three formulas: the linear mapping function for software requirements, ambiguity density index (ADI), and the fault-prone SRS score. 1. Linear Mapping Function for Software Requirements: A mathematical formula used to calculate a score based on a given ratio of clear requirements to ambiguous requirements. The formula uses the concept of exponential decay, where the score decreases as the ratio of clear to ambiguous requirements decreases. The score ranges from 0 to 10, with 10 being the highest score and indicating a high ratio of clear requirements to ambiguous requirements. If the score is high, it means that there are more clear requirements compared to ambiguous requirements. A higher score indicates more clarity and less ambiguity in the requirements. 2. Ambiguity Density Index (ADI): ADI formula quantifies the level of ambiguity in the SRS by measuring the ratio of the number of occurrences of ambiguous words in each SRS to the total number of words in the SRS. A lower ADI value indicates a lower level of ambiguity in the SRS, meaning that the specification is clearer and easier to understand. However, a high ADI value indicates a high level of ambiguity, and areas of the SRS may require further clarification or refinement to ensure a clear and unambiguous specification. 3. Fault-prone SRS Score: The fault-prone SRS Score considers various factors such as the clarity of the title and description, the presence of intended users, the ratio of clear requirements to ambiguous requirements and the usage of ambiguous words to assign a score that reflects the overall fault-proneness of the SRS. These factors are assigned a weight based on the perceived importance in the development of a high-quality SRS. To clarify, while a higher ADI value generally indicates a higher level of ambiguity it does not necessarily mean that the SRS tends to be fault-prone.