The software requirements engineering (RE) process is one of the key processes in software development. The aim of requirements engineering process is capturing, understanding and analyzing customer requirements. Today, use cases are widely used as a technique for specification of the functional requirements of the system. Even through use cases are widely used for specification of the functional requirements, their semantics are unclear that it is difficult to apply them to complex problems. In this paper we have proposed SilabReq language for use cases specification for a standard information system. It is developed under XText framework. The benefits of using SilabReq for use cases specification are reflected in the fact that software requirements are considered as a model. Thereafter, the use cases can be used for automatic processing and analyzing.

Use cases describe a set of interactions between actors/users and the system under study. These interactions should be described textually according to some style and template to be simultaneously readable, consistent and verifiable. The main reason for these qualities is that use cases specification should be used both by business analysts and requirements engineers, when specifying functional requirements, as well as by software developers, when designing and implementing the involved system functionality. In spite of the popularity of use cases, there are not many patterns and guidance to help produce use cases specifications in a systematic and high-quality way. Furthermore, in the context of Model Driven Development (MDD) approaches, use cases specifications can be also considered models with precise syntax and semantics to be automatically validated or used in model-to-model or model-to-text transformations. In this paper we propose a pattern language to improve the quality of use cases specifications. These patterns are concrete guidelines that have emerged from the research and industrial experience of the authors throughout the years, particularly in the designing of MDD languages and approaches and in applying them in concrete applications. These patterns are interconnected among themselves and are the following: (P1) Define Use Case Types, (P2) Keep Use Case Consistent with the Domain Model, (P3) Define Use Case with Different Scenario and Interaction Block Types, and (P4) Define Use Case with Different Action Types.

Use cases are narrative description of interactions between users and a software system. They are primary used to specify functional system requirements. Despite the fact that use cases are narrative, there is no standard that specifies what textual specification of use case should like. However, the integration of use cases in a Model Driven Engineering process requires more rigorous specifications. The specification of use cases at different levels of abstraction is needed because of the large number of stakeholders involved in the software development process. We propose use cases specification at different levels of abstraction to promote better integration, communication and understanding among the involved stakeholders. We still discuss that base on this approach different software development artifacts such as domain model, system operations, user interface design can be automatically generated or validated.

People prefer to use textual specification of requirements, but their representations are not suitable for automatic transformation and reuse. Use case modelling is commonly used to structure and document requirements. The integration of use cases within the Model Driven Development paradigm requires a rigorous definition of the use case specification. In this paper we describe the key part of SilabReq language for requirements specification based on use case and present the main result from our preliminary experience with implementation of the SilabReq language with JetBrains Meta Programming System.

Background/Aim. Despite of contemporary diabetes mellitus (DM) treatment, one half of patients do not achieve an optimal metabolic control. Considering great psychological burden of diabetic patients, the purpose of this study was to assess the effect of different insulin treatment regimens, glycemic control and the presence of vascular complications on self-reported well-being and quality of life (QoL) of subjects with type 1 DM. Methods. The patients with type 1 DM (n = 122) recruited from the outpatient Diabetes Endocrinology Clinic of Zvezdara University Medical Center were divided into 4 groups according to the specific treatment regimen: 26 were on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), 30 on conventional insulin therapy, 33 on multiple daily injections (MDI) with human insulins, and 33 on MDI with insulin analogues. QoL was assessed by self-reported well-being with the following questionnaires: WHO-5 item Well Being Index (WHO- 5), 36 item Short Form (SF-36) survey, and Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS). Objective metabolic control was assessed by glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), lipid levels and the presence of vascular complications. Statistical analyses used in this crosssectional study included: descriptive statistics, Student’s t-test, Chisqare test, contingency tables, ANOVA and correlation methods. Results. The patients on CSII had significantly better metabolic control than all other treatment groups, especially when compared to the one on conventional therapy (CSII HbA1c 7.07 ± 1.48% vs conventional therapy, HbA1c 10.04 ± 1.44; p = 0.000). No significant difference in glycemic control was observed between patients on MDI with human insulins and insulin analogues. Good glycemic control significantly influenced the reported QoL. The patients with retinopathy and nephropathy reported significantly lower physical well-being, and the patients with polyneuropathy and cardiovascular complications reported also lower psychological well being. Conclusions. Insulin treatment regiment selection affects not only objective metabolic control, but also QoL.