A metric for evaluating software architecture and communication models consistency

Jean-Yves Lafaye; Georges Louis

RAIRO - Theoretical Informatics and Applications (2010)

  • Volume: 39, Issue: 2, page 361-390
  • ISSN: 0988-3754

Abstract

top
Among several alternative viewpoints for building software quality metrics, evaluating the consistency between different models in a software specification or implementation appears to be fruitful. An obvious difficulty is that different models are usually expressed by means of different concepts, and then, confronting heterogeneous representations is not straightforward. In this paper, we propose a solution for measuring the consistency between the architecture and the communication models. After some sensible transformations, the information about both models are captured trough hierarchical representations. We define and discuss a similarity measure between hierarchies, that eventually founds the software metric we propose. Lastly, we investigate how to scale and interpret the metric values and give an application example with SDL.

How to cite

top

Lafaye, Jean-Yves, and Louis, Georges. "A metric for evaluating software architecture and communication models consistency." RAIRO - Theoretical Informatics and Applications 39.2 (2010): 361-390. <http://eudml.org/doc/92771>.

@article{Lafaye2010,
abstract = { Among several alternative viewpoints for building software quality metrics, evaluating the consistency between different models in a software specification or implementation appears to be fruitful. An obvious difficulty is that different models are usually expressed by means of different concepts, and then, confronting heterogeneous representations is not straightforward. In this paper, we propose a solution for measuring the consistency between the architecture and the communication models. After some sensible transformations, the information about both models are captured trough hierarchical representations. We define and discuss a similarity measure between hierarchies, that eventually founds the software metric we propose. Lastly, we investigate how to scale and interpret the metric values and give an application example with SDL. },
author = {Lafaye, Jean-Yves, Louis, Georges},
journal = {RAIRO - Theoretical Informatics and Applications},
keywords = {Software metrics; software architecture model; communication model; hierarchical clustering; model consistency; SDL; communication model},
language = {eng},
month = {3},
number = {2},
pages = {361-390},
publisher = {EDP Sciences},
title = {A metric for evaluating software architecture and communication models consistency},
url = {http://eudml.org/doc/92771},
volume = {39},
year = {2010},
}

TY - JOUR
AU - Lafaye, Jean-Yves
AU - Louis, Georges
TI - A metric for evaluating software architecture and communication models consistency
JO - RAIRO - Theoretical Informatics and Applications
DA - 2010/3//
PB - EDP Sciences
VL - 39
IS - 2
SP - 361
EP - 390
AB - Among several alternative viewpoints for building software quality metrics, evaluating the consistency between different models in a software specification or implementation appears to be fruitful. An obvious difficulty is that different models are usually expressed by means of different concepts, and then, confronting heterogeneous representations is not straightforward. In this paper, we propose a solution for measuring the consistency between the architecture and the communication models. After some sensible transformations, the information about both models are captured trough hierarchical representations. We define and discuss a similarity measure between hierarchies, that eventually founds the software metric we propose. Lastly, we investigate how to scale and interpret the metric values and give an application example with SDL.
LA - eng
KW - Software metrics; software architecture model; communication model; hierarchical clustering; model consistency; SDL; communication model
UR - http://eudml.org/doc/92771
ER -

References

top
  1. F. Ammar-Boudjelal, J.Y. Lafaye and G. Louis, Evaluating, Comparing and Improving the Quality of System Structure, During the Specification Process. Application Example with SDL. Software Quality J.7 (1998) 195–222.  
  2. Barthelemy J.P. and A. Guénoche, Les arbres et les représentations des proximités. Masson, Paris (1988).  
  3. V. Basili, L.C. Briand and W.L. Melo, A Validation of Object-Oriented Design Metrics as Quality Indicators. IEEE Trans. Software Engineer.22 (1996) 412–421.  
  4. K.S. Booth and G.S. Lueker, Testing for the consecutive ones property, interval graphs, and graph planarity using PO-Tree algorithms. J. Comput. Syst. Sci.13 (1976) 335-379.  
  5. S. Chidamber and C. Kemerer, A Metric Suite for Object Oriented Design. IEEE Trans. Software Engineer.20 (1994) 476–493.  
  6. S. Chidamber, D. Darcy and C. Kemerer, Managerial use of metrics for object oriented software: an exploratory analysis. IEEE Trans. Software Engineer.24 (1998) 629–639.  
  7. T. Demarco and B.W. Boehm, Controlling Software: Management, Measurement and Estimates. Prentice-Hall (1998).  
  8. J. Ellsberger, D. Hogrefe and A. Sarma, SDL, Formal Object-oriented Language for Communicating Systems. Prentice-Hall (1997).  
  9. N. Fenton, R. Whitty and Y. Lizuka (editors), Software Quality Assurance and Measurement: A Worldwide Perspective. Chapman and Hall (1996).  
  10. N.E. Fenton and S.L. Pfleeger, Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach. PWS Publ. 2nd edition London (1996).  
  11. A. Finkenstein, D. Gabbay, A. Hunter, J. Kramer and B. Nuseibeh, Inconsistency Handling in Multi-Perspective Specifications. IEEE Trans. Software Engineer.20 (1994) 569–578.  
  12. T. Foucart, Analyse factorielle de tableaux multiples. Masson, Paris (1984).  
  13. P. Fradet, D. Le Métayer and M. Périn, Consistency Checking for Multiple View Software Architectures, in Proc. of European Software Engineering Conference, FSE'99, Springer-Verlag (1999) 410–428.  
  14. P. Inverardi, H. Muccini and P. Pellicione, Automated Check of Architectural Models Consistency using SPIN, in Proc. of Automated Software Engineering conference, ASE'2001 (2001) 322–330.  
  15. INSM, New Approaches in Software Measurement, in Proc. of 10th international Workshop INSM'2000, LCNS, Springer-Verlag (2000)  
  16. ISO/IEC 9126, International Standard Information Technology – Software Product Evaluation.Quality Characteristics and Guideline. ISO (1991).  
  17. C. Lavit, Analyse conjointe de tableaux quantitatifs. Masson, Paris (1988).  
  18. E.L. Lawler, Graphical algorithms and their complexity. Mathematical Center Tract81 (1976) 3–32.  
  19. I.C. Lerman, Classification et analyse ordinale de données. Dunod, Paris (1981).  
  20. C. Lewerentz and T. Lindner, Formal Development of Reactive Systems: Case Study Production Cell, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.891 (1995).  
  21. M. Lorentz and J. Kidd, Object Oriented Metrics. Prentice-Hall (1994).  
  22. G. Poels and G. Dedene, Modelling and Measuring Object-Oriented Software attributes with Proximity Structures, in Proc. of 3rd International ECOOP WQAOOSE, Lisbon (1999) 1–22.  
  23. G. Poels and G. Dedene, Measuring Event-Based Object Oriented Conceptual Models, L'Objet, logiciel, bases de données, réseaux, Vol. 7. Hermès, Paris (2001).  
  24. J.M. Spivey, The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International, 2nd edition, (1992).  
  25. L. Stewart, Co-graphs, a class of tree representable graphs. Ph.D. Dpt of Computer Science, TR 126/78, University of Toronto, Canada (1978).  
  26. S.A. Whitmire, Object Oriented Design Measurement. J. Wiley (1997).  

NotesEmbed ?

top

You must be logged in to post comments.

To embed these notes on your page include the following JavaScript code on your page where you want the notes to appear.

Only the controls for the widget will be shown in your chosen language. Notes will be shown in their authored language.

Tells the widget how many notes to show per page. You can cycle through additional notes using the next and previous controls.

    
                

                
Note: Best practice suggests putting the JavaScript code just before the closing </body> tag.