Table of Contents
Advances in Software Engineering
Volume 2013, Article ID 952178, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/952178
Research Article

A Granular Hierarchical Multiview Metrics Suite for Statecharts Quality

University of Ottawa, School of Information Technology and Engineering, 800 King Edward, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5

Received 30 March 2013; Revised 7 June 2013; Accepted 7 June 2013

Academic Editor: Phillip A. Laplante

Copyright © 2013 Mokhtar Beldjehem. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds., Software Engineering: Report on A Conference Sponsored by the NATO Science Committee1968, Scientific Affairs Division, Brussels, Belgium, 1969.
  2. K. Derr, Applying OMT, SIGS Books, Prentice Hall, New York, NY, USA, 1995.
  3. J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen, Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1991.
  4. G. Poels and G. Dedene, “Measures for assesing dynamic complexity of aspects of object-oriented conceptual schemes,” in Proceeding of the 19th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER '00), pp. 499–512, 2000.
  5. M. Cartwright and M. Shepperd, “An empirical investigation of an object-oriented software system,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 786–796, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Carbone and G. Santucci, “Fast & Serious : a UML based metric for effort estimation,” in Proceeding of the 6th International ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE '02), pp. 35–44, 2000.
  7. J. A. Cruz-Lemus, M. Genero, S. Morasca, and M. Piattini, “Using practitioners for assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4802, pp. 213–222, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Castelló, R. Mili, and I. G. Tollis, “A framework for the static and interactive visualization of statecharts,” Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 313–351, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. W. Ambler, The Element of UML 2.0 Style, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.
  10. S. J. Mellor, MDA Distilled: Principles of Model-Driven Architecture, Addison-Wesley, Boston, Mass, USA, 2002.
  11. W. M. Thorburn, “Occam's razor,” Mind, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 287–288, 1913. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. W. M. Thorburn, “The Myth of Occam's razor,” Mind, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 345–353, 1918. View at Google Scholar
  13. G. A. Miller, “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information,” Psychological Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 81–97, 1956. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. W. J. Tracz, “Computer programming and the human thought process,” Software, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 127–137, 1979. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. D. Harel, “Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems,” Science of Computer Programming, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 231–274, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. D. Harel, A. Pnueli, J. Schmidt, and R. Sherman, “On the formal semantics of statecharts,” in Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 54–64, Ithaca, New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  17. B. W. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall, New York, NY, USA, 1981.
  18. B. W. Boehm, “Improving Software Productivity,” IEEE Computer, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 43–57, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. B. W. Boehm, J. R. Brown, H. Kaspar, M. Lipow, G. J. MacLeod, and M. J. Merrit, Characteristics of Software Quality, TRW series of software technology, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, The Netherlands, 1978.
  20. ISO/IEC and 9126-1:2001, “Software engineering—product quality—part 1: quality model,” 2001.
  21. V. R. Basili and H. D. Rombach, “The TAME project :towards improvement-oriented software environment,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 758–773, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. V. Basili and D. A. Weiss, “Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 456–473, 1984. View at Google Scholar
  23. R. van Solingen and E. Berghout, The Goal/Question/Metric Method: A Practical Guide For Quality Improvement of Software Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1999.
  24. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 338–353, 1965. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. L. Zadeh, “The concept of linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning part I,” Information Sciences, vol. 8, pp. 199–249, 1973. View at Google Scholar
  26. T. J. McCabe, “A complexity measure,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 308–320, 1976. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. D. L. Parnas, “On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1053–1058, 1972. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. P. Gray, Psychology, Worth Publishers, London, UK, 2007.
  29. D. Dunteman, Principal Component Analysis, Sage University Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1989.
  30. M. Beldjehem, “A granular unified min-max fuzzy-neuro framework for learning fuzzy systems,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 520–528, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. M. Beldjehem, “A granular unified hybrid MinMax fuzzy-neuro framework for predicting and understanding software quality,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 17–36, 2010. View at Google Scholar