airo international research journal volume 6 ... akhtar 1.docx · web viewproperty 3 nonuniqueness...

AIRO INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL VOLUME 6 ISSN 2320-3714

SOFTWARE METRICS VALIDATION METHODOLOGIES IN SOFTWARE

ENGINEERING Submitted by :Fahed Akhtar

Abstract

In the product estimation approvals, surveying the acceptance of programming measurements in programming building is an extremely troublesome errand because of absence of hypothetical approach and experimental technique [41, 44, 45]. Amid late years, there have been various specialists tending to the issue of accepting programming measurements. At present, programming measurements are accepted hypothetically utilizing properties of measures. Further, programming estimation assumes a vital part in understanding and controlling programming advancement practices and items. The real necessity in programming estimation is that the measures must speak to precisely those ascribes they indicate to evaluate and approval is basic to the accomplishment of programming estimation. Typically, approval is a gathering of examination and testing exercises over the full life cycle and supplements the endeavors of other quality building capacities and acceptance is a basic assignment in any designing task. Further, acceptance goal is to find deformities in a framework and survey regardless of whether the framework is helpful and usable in operational circumstance. On account of programming designing, acceptance is one of the product designing teaches that incorporate quality with programming. The real goal of programming acceptance procedure is to confirm that the product performs its proposed capacities accurately and gives data about its quality and dependability. This paper talks about the approval approach, strategies and diverse properties of measures that are utilized for programming measurements acceptance. Much of the time, hypothetical and observational acceptances are directed for programming measurements approvals in programming building

KEYWORDS

Result Based Software Metrics (RBSM), Software Metrics Validations, Theoretical Validations, Empirical Validations, Software Measurement, Object-Oriented Metrics, Software Engineering

1. INTRODUCTION

The product measurements is a fundamental examination subject in programming building [1-50]. The product measurements specialists proposing another metric have the inconvenience of confirmation to demonstrate that the metric is sufficient for measuring the product [41, 44]. This is given through the procedure of programming measurements acceptance. In the course of the most recent four decades, in any case, analysts have talked about what constitutes a "substantial" metric. The verbal confrontation over what constitutes substantial metric focuses on programming measurements acceptance criteria [10, 24, 47]. By analyst Jones, C., "Better measures and better measurements are the venturing stones to programming building brilliance" [22]. As of late, Srinivasan, K.P., and Devi, T., proposed an arrangement of six Result Based Software Metrics (RBSM) suites called "Thorough Metrics" for measuring object-situated configuration quality adequacy [44, 45, 46]. What's more, further, they likewise presented another sort of programming measurements for programming coding estimation in programming building measurements called "Program Keyword Metrics (PKM) (RBSM)" [41]. This project catchphrase measurements disposes of the equivocalness feedback of most alluded "Halstead Metrics" and "Lines Of Coding (LOC) measurements" in programming designing. Further, they disposed of the primary feedback of "exactness on results" in programming quality estimation by "System Keyword Metrics" in programming designing [41]. Today, the product measurements gives the presence of being more impacted by "item arranged measurements [31, 33, 44, 45]"


and "programming measurements approvals [3, 34, 35]". At present, numerous scientists are included in proposing programming measurements for programming procedure and item estimation [12, 13, 25, 40, 44, 45]. The most vital occasions of programming measurements demonstrate that in the past numerous measurements had been proposed and accepted by prominent scientists. This paper talks about the ideas identified with hypothetical and observational programming measurements acceptance techniques.

Basili, V.R., and Weiss, D.M., proposed a procedure for gathering legitimate programming building information and a compelling information accumulation technique for assessing programming improvement [9]. In the year 1985, Shen,V.Y., Yu, T.Y., Thebaut,M., and Paulsen.L.R., led an exact study for distinguishing mistake inclined programming. They concentrated on and broke down three project items and their mistake histories and they found that straightforward measurements identified with the measure of information and the basic multifaceted nature of projects might be helpful in recognizing at an early stage those modules well on the way to contain blunders [39]. Programming measurements are registered with the end goal of assessing certain attributes of the product created. Li, H.F., and Cheung, W.K., led an experimental investigation of programming measurements in 1987. They examined 31 measurements, including another cross breed metric, and connected them to a database of 255 projects. It is likewise reasoned that numerous volume measurements have comparable execution while some control measurements shockingly relate well with common volume measurements in the test tests utilized [27]. Cherniavsky, J.C., and Smith, C.H., concentrated on Weyuker's sayings for programming multifaceted nature measure and properties for programming many-sided quality measures. It is demonstrated that a gathering of properties recommended by Weyuker are insufficient for deciding the nature of a product many-sided quality measure. They reasoned that Weyuker is not proposing the properties as aphorisms, but rather just as dependable guidelines for assessing unpredictability measures [11].

Schneidewind, N.F., proposed the measurements acceptance philosophy that has six legitimacy criteria. The proposed approval philosophy bolsters the quality capacity for evaluation, control, and expectation. The Schneidewind, N.F. acceptance criteria for programming measures are: affiliation, consistency, separation, power following, consistency and repeatability. Further, it demonstrates that nonparametric measurable strategies assume an imperative part in assessing measurements against the legitimacy criteria [37]. Alshayeb, M., and Li, W., directed an experimental approval of article situated measurements in two distinctive iterative programming procedures and observed that question arranged measurements are sensibly powerful in foreseeing advancement changes of a framework outline in the short-cycled process, yet they are to a great extent ineffectual in the since quite a while ago cycled structure process. Further, they inferred that prescient capacity of article arranged measurements in the short-cycled iterative procedure is just powerful when the configuration collects to a specific minimum amount, frequently toward the last a few emphasess in the process and this study gave the confirmation on the capacities and impediments of item situated measurements in foreseeing upkeep exertion [2]. Bandi, R.K., Vaishnavi, V.K., and Turk, D.E., led an exact study for foreseeing upkeep execution utilizing object-arranged configuration multifaceted nature measurements. Scientists concurred that upkeep might end up being simpler for article situated frameworks. The way to deal with controlling programming upkeep expenses is the usage of programming measurements amid the advancement stage and to distinguish potential issue zones. They led observational acceptance for three existing configuration intricacy measurements and it is utilized to survey their capacity to anticipate upkeep time. The experimentally accepted three measurements are collaboration level, interface size, and operation contention many-sided quality. The examination led on the impact of configuration unpredictability on upkeep time and each of the three measurements independent from anyone else was observed to be helpful in the trial in foreseeing support execution [8]. Deligiannis, I., Shepperd, M., Roumeliotis, M., and Stamelos, I., directed an experimental examination of an item arranged outline heuristic for viability. They explored the effect of a configuration heuristic on the practicality of item arranged outlines and the relationship between that protest situated configuration heuristic and measurements [15]. Badri, L., and Badri, M., led an exact study for new class union measurements [6]. Badri L, Badri, and Gueye, A.B., led an exact examination on a few frameworks. Class union is considered as a standout amongst the most essential article arranged programming properties. They presented another union foundation


taking into account basic items parameters. They investigated the genuine frameworks to approve class attachment appraisal by investigating union observationally [7]. Kaur, A., Singh, S., Kahlon, K.S., and Sandhu, P.S., led exact investigation of CK and MOOD measurements suite. The observational approvals of these measurements in true programming advancement setting are constrained. Different blemishes and irregularities have been seen in the suite of six class-based measurements [23]. Approval is the procedure of assessing a framework or segment amid or toward the end of the advancement procedure to figure out if it fulfills determined prerequisites or not and acceptance ought to build up certainty that the product is fit for its motivation and does what the client truly requires [16]. Area 2 clarifies distinctive sorts of approvals utilized as a part of programming measurements and Section 3 examines the Weyuker's properties of measures. Further, Section 4 talks about the Kitchenham's properties of measures. Area 5 clarifies Briand's properties of measures and conclusion incorporates future bearings of the exploration.

Figure 2. Theoretical Validations Techniques in Software Measurement

The representational hypothesis of estimation depends on a homomorphism between the observational world and the numerical world and the representation condition, which bears witness to that the properties of the characteristics in this present reality ought to be kept up by the measures in the numerical world. This infers the meaning of an observational and a numerical world and the development of a mapping between the two. This sort of acceptances is called interior approval of measures for evaluation and hypothetical acceptance. The property-based hypothetical methodologies are utilized with various maxims for hypothetical acceptances and this classification of hypothetical approval is additionally called "proverbial, investigative, and arithmetical acceptance". This paper talks about three sorts of properties of measures that are appeared in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Theoretical Properties of Measures in Metrics ValidationsThe arrangement of sayings are characterized for programming characteristic. Weyuker, E.J., [47] proposed nine properties for assessing syntactic programming measures and they are talked about in Section 3. These properties are utilized on the pertinence of article situated measures and properties alone are important to demonstrate the legitimacy of measure. Briand, L.C., et al. [10] portray properties of measures for size,complexity, length, coupling, and attachment. They express that the representation condition is an undeniable essential to gauge approval. A more extensive way to deal with hypothetical acceptance is taken by Kitchenham, B., et al. [24].


The method to take after for exploratory acceptance shifts altogether relying upon the reason for the measures, i.e., assessment or expectation, the sort, and the measure of information gathered. One measure can be utilized to foresee the estimation of another measure [17, 24]. Presently proposed measurements are accepted utilizing hypothetical and experimental approvals for programming measurements and measures are accepted for legitimacy. The three sorts of exact acceptances are reviews, contextual investigations and examinations (Figure 4).

By of measures, not every one of the measures fulfill approval properties. Furthermore, the measures that don't fulfill the properties can securely be barred. Be that as it may, there is proof for an approved measure utilized as a part of programming measurements hypothetically and exactly. The verification of the acceptance is that several measures have been characterized and approved previously. A large number of the characterized measurements are demonstrated utilizing both hypothetical and exact approvals and they are helpful for experimental proof of programming [48]. The accompanying area clarifies the most alluded and utilized programming measurements approval strategy proposed by Weyuker's properties of measures

3. WEYUKER’S PROPERTIES OF MEASURES IN TRADITIONAL AND OBJECT-ORIENTED METRICS VALIDATIONSThis area clarifies the acceptance properties of measure proposed by the prominent scientist Weyuker, E.J. It is most alluded properties of measure and a large portion of the item arranged measurements are hypothetically accepted utilizing these properties [1, 3, 14, 34, 35]. The assessment is performed by distinguishing an arrangement of alluring properties that measures ought to have and figuring out if or not the forthcoming metric displays those properties [47].

The prevalent and frequently utilized Weyuker's nine properties are appeared in the Table 1. The properties are: Property 1 Noncoarseness: Given a class P and a metric another class Q can simply be discovered such that (P) ≠ (Q). This infers not each class can have the same worth for a metric; else it loses its quality as an estimation. Property 2 Granularity: There ought to be a limited number of cases having the same metric worth. Subsequent to the universe of talk manages right around a limited arrangement of uses, each of which has a limited number of classes, this property will be met by any metric measured at the class level. Property 3 Nonuniqueness (Notion of Equivalence): There can exist unmistakable classes P and Q such that (P) = (Q). This suggests two classes can have the same metric worth, i.e., the two classes are just as perplexing. Property 4 Design Details are Important: Given two class plans, P and Q, which give the same usefulness, does not infer that (P) = (Q). The specifics of the class must impact the metric quality. The instinct behind property 4 is that despite the fact that two class outlines perform same capacities, the subtle elements of configuration matter in deciding the metric for the class. Property 5 Monotonicity: For all classes P and Q the accompanying must hold: (P) ≤ (P+Q) and (Q) ≤ (P+Q), where P+Q suggests mix of P and Q. This infers the metric for the mix of two classes can never be not exactly the metric for both of segment classes.

Property 6 Nonequivalence of Interaction: For classes P, Q, R, (P) = (Q) does not infer that (P+R) = (Q+R). This proposes cooperation in the middle of P and R can be unique in relation to the communication in the


middle of Q and R bringing about various unpredictability values for P + R and Q + R. Property 7 Permutation: A measure is touchy to the stage of classes. This property requires that stage of components inside of the thing being measured can change the metric quality. This property is important in customary project plan. Property 8 Renaming Property: If a class P is a renaming of a class Q, then (P) = (Q). The renaming property requires that when the name of measured substance changes, the metric ought to stay unaltered.

Property 9 Interaction Increases Complexity: P and Q are classes such that: (P) + (Q) <

(P+Q). The standard behind the property is that when two classes are consolidated, the communication between classes can build the unpredictability metric quality.

Table 1. Weyuker’s Properties of Measures

Property 1 Noncoarseness

Property 2 GranularityProperty 3 Nonuniqueness (Notion of Equivalence)

Property 4 Design Details are ImportantProperty 5 MonotonicityProperty 6 Nonequivalence of InteractionProperty 7 PermutationProperty 8 Renaming Property

Property 9 Interaction Increases Complexity

Weyuker's second property "granularity" and eighth property "renaming property" are pertinent to all article arranged measurements. The seventh property "stage" is just for conventional programming and not required for article arranged programming.

The famous specialists Chidamber, R., and Kemerer, C.F. accepted item arranged outline measurements utilizing Weyuker's properties of measure [14]. Bowman, C., and Stinson, M. connected Weyuker's properties on Halsted measurements and McCabe's measurements. They recommended that Weyuker's properties can be utilized as a premise for selecting programming measurements properties [4]. Weyuker's properties have been generally utilized and they are entrenched contrasted with other acceptance criteria. It is a formal approach and serves as an imperative measure to assess measurements [36]. Aggarwal, K.K., et al. logically assessed an arrangement of configuration measurements proposed for article situated programming utilizing Weyuker's arrangement of all adages [ 1]. Anbumani, K., and Srinivasan, K.P., assessed their measurements utilizing Weyuker's properties of measures [3]. Sharma, An, et al. assessed their intricacy measurements utilizing Weyuker's properties of measures [38]. Misra, S., and Akman, I. led the use of Weyuker's properties of measures on item situated measurements [29]. Malik, N., and Chillar, R.S. proposed the new outline measurements for multifaceted nature and accepted measurements utilizing Weyuker's properties of measures [28]. At present, Weyuker's properties are

principally utilized for programming measurements approval by different scientists and these properties are exceptionally helpful for article arranged outline measurements acceptances. The accompanying segment talks about another critical acceptance procedure called Kitchenham properties of measure.


4. KITCHENHAM’S PROPERTIES OF MEASURES IN TRADITIONAL ANDOBJECT-ORIENTED METRICS VALIDATION TECHNIQUESThe prominent scientists Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L., and Fenton, N., have proposed properties for approving programming measurements and they disclosed how to accept measurements for their legitimacy of measure [21, 24]. They proposed a fundamental presumption for measure for acceptance on fulfilling the two conditions: Measure must not abuse and important properties and every model utilized as a part of the estimation process must be substantial (Figure 5).

Formally, Kitchenham, B., et al. characterized substantial measure as it can't demonstrate a hypothesis however can just misrepresent it. Along these lines, a legitimate measure is one that it can't be negated. Keeping in mind the end goal to choose the estimation legitimacy, it is important to affirm diverse sorts of estimation legitimacy proposed by Kitchenham, B., et al. furthermore, they are represented in Table 2. The sorts of programming estimation legitimacy are property, unit, instrument and convention legitimacy [24, 49]. Attribute legitimacy - The property is really shown by the substance. Quality legitimacy must be viewed as both for specifically quantifiable characteristics and for in a roundabout way quantifiable properties that are gotten from different traits; Unit legitimacy - The estimation unit being utilized is a fitting method for measuring the attribute; Instrument legitimacy - Any model basic a measuring instrument must be legitimate and the measuring instrument is appropriately adjust; and Protocol legitimacy - An adequate estimation convention is received.

Kitchenham,B., et al. characterized properties for measure called as "Kitchenham's properties of measures" and expressed that the product measurements ought to show the properties. The Kitchenham's properties for measurements are appeared in Figure 6. Property 1: For an ascribe to be quantifiable, it must permit distinctive elements to be recognized from each other; Property 2: A substantial measure must comply with the representation condition, that is, it must protect the instinctive thoughts about the characteristic and the path in which it recognizes diverse elements; Property 3: Each unit of a credit adding to a substantial measure is equal; and Property 4: Different elements can have the same trait esteem inside of the cutoff points of estimation mistake.


The four properties of Figure 6 are essential properties for direct measures, however they are not adequate for roundabout measures. For roundabout measurements, they proposed another four extra properties and they are appeared in Figure 7. Property 5: The metric ought to be founded on an expressly model of the relationship between specific qualities; Property 6: The model must be dimensionally predictable; Property 7: The metric must not display any startling discontinuities; and Property 8: The metric must utilize units and scale sorts accurately.

The properties of measures of Kitchenham, B., et al. were utilized by Harrison et al. for approving MOOD measurements [21]. Kitchenham, B., et al. concurs with property 1 of Weyuker and they dismisses the properties 5, 6 and 9 of Weyuker in light of the fact that they suggest scale sort. They reasoned that property 7 is wrong as it negates with standard estimation scale and property 8 as pointless, because of representation conditions. Weyuker's properties 1, 7 and 8 are connected with properties of measures of Kitchenham, B., et al. Weyuker's properties 2, 3 and 4 are not considered by Kitchenham, B., et al.

Figure 7. Properties of Indirect MeasureA legitimate measure must comply with the representation condition, that is, it must safeguard the natural thoughts about the property and the path in which it recognizes distinctive elements. Weyuker's eighth property is identified with this issue. It has acknowledged the delegate condition and Kitchenham's properties don't require Weyuker's eighth property. Weyuker's property 7 identifies with this issue and truth be told, it attests the opposite of this suspicion by guaranteeing that program multifaceted nature ought to be receptive to the request of proclamations in a system. Weyuker's fourth property expresses that projects that convey the same usefulness can have diverse many-sided quality qualities. This property states that capacity does not endorse structure. Subsequently, it is by all accounts an affirmation about many-sided quality instead of a property of an unpredictability estimation. The accompanying segment examines other essential properties of measures proposed by the famous scientists Briand, L.C., Morasca, S., Basili, V.R.


5. BRIAND’S PROPERTIES AND METHODS IN SOFTWARE METRICSVALIDATION TECHNIQUESIn programming estimation, characterizing properties of measure is an essential errand and it requires aptitude for characterizing properties for programming measurements. Briand, L.C., Morasca, S., Basili, V.R. have proposed property-based methodology for programming estimation [10, 35]. They proposed an arrangement of scientific properties and formalized imperative interior programming traits for "size, length, multifaceted nature, attachment, and coupling" estimation. Their structure depends on a diagram theoretic model of a product measurements, which is seen as an arrangement of components connected by connections. The properties gave by them can be connected to any product object created along the product process. Their structure incorporates meanings of frameworks, modules and particular frameworks and operations between the components [10, 35, 50]. Their properties of measure for interior qualities are appeared in Figure 8. The properties proposed by Weyuker in the Section 3 and Kitchenham in the Section 4 are grammatically based properties of measure and their properties are "bland". Their properties don't describe particular estimation ideas yet properties of measures of Briand et al. are just for size, length, multifaceted nature, attachment and coupling (Figure 8).

The ideas of 'size and intricacy' are identified with framework and modules. The conceivable framework representation and modules and connections can be characterized as: A framework S will be spoken to as a couple < E, R>, where E speaks to the arrangement of components of S, and R is a paired connection on E (R ⊆ E * E) speaking to the connections between components of S. Given framework S = <E, R>, a framework m = <Em, Rm> is a module of S and just if Em, ⊆ E, Rm⊆ Em*Em and Rm⊆ R. The ideas union and coupling are significant just with reference to framework that is given measured decay. The representation of particular framework can be characterized as a 3-tuple - MS = < E, R, M> speaks to a secluded framework in S = <E, R> is a framework as per past definition and M is an accumulation of modules of S.

Scientific Properties of Measures for Size: The size is perceived just like an imperative estimation idea in programming building. By system, 'size can't be

negative. At the point when a framework does not contain any components and when modules don't have components in like manner then the size is relied upon to be added substance. The span of a framework S is a capacity Size(S) that is described by the accompanying properties (Figure 9).


Property Size1 - Nonnegativity: The measure of a framework S = <E, R> is nonnegative, i.e., Size(S) 0. Property Size 2 - Null Values: The span of a framework S = <E, R> is invalid if E is vacant, E = ∅ ⇒ Size(S) = 0. Property Size 3 - Module Additive: The span of a framework S = <E, R> is equivalent to the total of the sizes of two of its modules m1 = <Em1, Rm1> and m2 = <Em2, Rm2> such that any component of S is a component of either m1 or m2. (m1 ⊆ S and m2 ⊆ S and E = Em1 ∪ Em2 and Em1 Em2 = ∅) ⇒ Size(S) = Size (m1) + Size (m2). The extra three properties for size from the above properties are appeared beneath and they are named as property 4, 5 and 6. Property Size 4 - Size of a System: Property Size 4 gives the way to figure the measure of a framework S = <E, R> from the learning of the extent of its – disjoint - modules me = < {e}, Re> whose arrangement of components is made out of various components e of E1. Size(S) = size (me). Property Size 5 - Adding Elements: Adding components to a framework can't diminish its size. (S' = <E', R'> and S" = <E", R"> and E' ⊆ E") ⇒ Size (S') Size (S"). Property Size 6 - Sum of Modules: The properties, Size.1 - Size.3, take after the span of a framework S = <E, R> is not more noteworthy than the whole of the sizes of any pair of its modules m1 = <Em1, Rm1> and m2 = <Em2, Rm2>, such that any component of S is a component of m1, or m2, or both, i.e., (m1 ⊆ S and m2 ⊆ S and E = Em1 ∪ Em2) ⇒ Size(S) Size (m1) + Size (m2). The span of a framework worked by combining such modules can't be more noteworthy than the total of the sizes of the modules, because of the vicinity of normal components. Properties Size.1 to Size.6 holds while applying the acceptable change of the proportion scale. In this manner, there is no inconsistency between Briand, et al. idea of size and the meaning of size measures on a proportion scale.

Mathematical Properties of Measures for Length: The properties Size.1 to Size.6 describe the idea of size as normally proposed in programming estimation. Keeping in mind the end goal to separate the estimation idea of length from size, different properties are proposed for "length". The length of a framework S is a capacity, Length(S) portrayed by the accompanying properties Length.1 to Length.5 as appeared in Figure 10.

associated segment of S" and S' = <E,R'> and R' = R ∪ {<e1,e2>} and <e1,e2> ∉ R and e1 ∈ Em1 and e2 ∈ Em1) ⇒ Length (S) Length (S'). Property Length 4 - Nondecreasing Monotonicity for Non-associated Components: Let S be a framework and m1 and m2 be two modules of S such that m1 and m2 are spoken to by two separate associated parts of the chart speaking to S. Including connections from components of m1 to components of m2 does not diminish the length of S. (S = <E,R> and m1 = <Em1,Rm1> and m2 = <Em2,Rm2> and m1 ⊆ S and m2 ⊆ S " are independent associated segments of S" and S' = <E,R'> and R' = R ∪ {<e1,e2>} and <e1,e2> ∉ R and e1 ∈ Em1 and e2 ∈ Em2) ⇒ Length(S') Length(S). Property Length 5 - Disjoint Modules: The length of a framework S = <E, R> made of two disjoint modules m1, m2 is equivalent to the most extreme of the lengths of m1 and m2. (S = m1 ∪ m2 and m1 m2 = ∅ and E = Em1 ∪


Em2) ⇒ Length(S) = max {Length (m1), Length (m2)}. Properties Length 1 to Length 5 hold the permissible change of the proportion scale.

Numerical Properties of Measures for Complexity: The many-sided quality is an estimation idea that is considered amazingly important to framework properties. In Briand's structure, multifaceted nature of a framework S is a capacity Complexity (S) that is portrayed by the properties Complexity 1 to Complexity 5 as appeared in Figure 11. Property Complexity 1-Nonnegativity: The multifaceted nature of a framework S = <E, R> is non-negative i.e., Complexity (S) 0. Property Complexity 2 - Null Value: The multifaceted nature of a framework S = <E, R> is invalid if R is void. R = ∅ ⇒ Complexity (S) = 0. Property Complexity 3 - Symmetry:The multifaceted nature of a framework S = <E, R> does not rely on upon the tradition spoke to the connections between its components. (S=<E, R> and S-1=<E, R-1>) ⇒ Complexity(S) = Complexity(S-1).

Global Journal of Software Engineering and Applications (IJSEA), Vol.5, No.6, November 2014

Property Complexity 4 - Module Monotonicity: The many-sided quality of a framework S = <E, R> is no not exactly the entirety of the complexities of any two of its modules without any connections in like manner.

(S = <E, R> and m1 = <Em1, Rm1> and m2 = <Em2, Rm2> and m1 ∪ m2 ⊆ S and Rm1 Rm2 = ∅) ⇒ Complexity (S) Complexity (m1) + Complexity (m2). Property Complexity 5 - Disjoint Module Additivity: The intricacy of a framework S = <E, R> made out of two disjoint modules m1, m2 is equivalent to the aggregate of the complexities of the two modules. (S = <E,R> and S = m1 ∪ m2 and m1 m2 = ∅) ⇒ Complexity(S) = Complexity (m1) + Complexity (m2).


Scientific Properties of Measures for Cohesion: The idea of attachment has been utilized with reference to modules or secluded frameworks. The union of a module [module m = < E m, R m>] is a capacity Cohesion (m) described by the properties Cohesion 1to Cohesion 4 as appeared in Figure 12. Property Cohesion 1 - Nonnegativity and Normalization: The union of a module m = <Em,Rm> of a particular framework has a place with a predetermined interim. Union (m) ∈ 0, Max. Property Cohesion 2 - Null Value: The union of a module m = <Em',Rm> of a measured framework is invalid if [Rm | IR] is void. Rm = ∅ ⇒ Cohesion (m) = 0. Property Cohesion 3 - Monotonicity: Let MS' = <E,R',M'> and MS" = <E,R",M"> be two secluded frameworks with the same arrangement of components E such that there exist two modules m' = <Em,Rm'> and m" = <Em,Rm> with the same arrangement of components Em having a place with M' and M", individually, such that R' - Rm' = R" - Rm", and Rm' ⊆ Rm" (which infers IR' ⊆ IR"). Including intra-module connections does not diminish module attachment.

Property Cohesion 4 - Cohesive Modules: Let MS' = <E,R,M'> and MS" = <E,R,M"> be two measured frameworks with the same fundamental framework <E,R> such that M" = M' - {m'1,m'2} ∪ {m"}, with m'1 ∈ M', m'2 ∈ M', m" ∉ M', and m" = m'1 ∪ m'2. The attachment of a module acquired by consolidating together two inconsequential modules is not more prominent than the most extreme union of the two unique modules. Properties Cohesion 1 to Cohesion 4 hold while applying the allowable change of the proportion scale. Along these lines, there is no inconsistency between idea of union and the meaning of attachment measures on a proportion scale.

Numerical Properties of Measures for Coupling: The idea of coupling has been utilized with reference to modules or secluded frameworks. The coupling catches the measure of relationship between the components fitting in with various modules of a framework. Given a module m, two sorts of coupling can be characterized: inbound coupling and outbound coupling. The previous catches the measure of connections from components outside m to components inside m; the catches the measure of connections from components inside m to components outside m. The coupling of a module [module m = <Em',Rm> of a secluded framework MS | measured framework MS] is a capacity [Coupling(m) | Coupling(MS)] portrayed by the properties Coupling 1 to Coupling 5 are appeared in Figure 13. Property Coupling 1 - Nonnegativity: The coupling of a module m = <Em,Rm> of a particular framework (MS) is nonnegative. Coupling (m) 0 | Coupling (MS) 0. Property Coupling 2 - Null Value: The coupling of a module m = <Em, Rm> of a particular framework MS = <E,R,M>] is invalid if [Outer R(m)| R-IR] is void. Property Coupling 3 - Monotonicity: Let MS' = <E,R',M'> and MS" = <E,R",M"> be two secluded frameworks with the same arrangement of components E such that there exist two modules m' ∈ M', m" ∈ M" such that R' – Outer R(m') = R" – Outer R(m"), and Outer R(m') ⊆ Outer R(m"). Including between module connections does not diminish coupling. Coupling (m') Coupling (m") | Coupling (MS') Coupling (MS"). Property Coupling 4 - Merging of Modules: Let MS' = <E',R',M'> and MS" = <E",R",M"> be two measured frameworks such that E' = E", R' = R", and M" = M' - {m'1,m'2} ∪ {m"}, where m'1 = <Em'1,Rm'1>, m'2 = <Em'2,Rm'2>, and m" = <Em",Rm">, with m'1 ∈ M', m'2 ∈ M', m" ∉ M', and Em" = Em'1 ∪ Em'2 and Rm" = Rm'1 ∪ Rm'2. The two modules m'1 and m'2 are supplanted by the module m", whose components and connections are the union of those of m'1 and m'2 [Coupling (m'1) + Coupling (m'2 ) Coupling (m") | Coupling(MS') Coupling(MS") ]. The coupling of a module or secluded framework acquired by combining two modules is not more noteworthy than the total of the couplings of the two unique


modules coupling of the first measured framework, since the two modules might have regular between module connections.

Property Coupling 5 - Disjoint Module Additivity: Let MS' = <E,R,M'> and MS" = <E,R,M"> be two secluded frameworks with the same fundamental framework <E,R> such that M" = M' - {m'1,m'2} ∪ {m"}, with m'1 ∈ M', m'2 ∈ M', m" ∉ M', and m" = m'1 ∪ m'2. The two modules m'1 and m'2 are supplanted by the module m" and union of m'1 and m'2. In the event that no relationship exists between the components fitting in with m'1 and m'2, i.e., InputR(m'1) OutputR(m'2) = ∅ and InputR(m'2) OutputR(m'1) = ∅, then Coupling (m'1) + Coupling (m'2) = Coupling (m") | Coupling (MS') = Coupling (MS"). The merging so as to couple of a module got two disconnected modules is equivalent to the aggregate of the couplings of the two unique modules | coupling of the first secluded framework. The ideas of Briand, et al. depicts the scales are rejected by the Weyuker's Properties [50]. The above examined hypothetical acceptance systems are utilized for approving programming measurements. The Weyuker's properties of approval are all the more broadly received in the writing for the hypothetical acceptance of programming measurements.

6. CONCLUSION

In programming designing, as of late, programming measurements analysts have presented new programming measurements and approved measurements utilizing hypothetical and observational methods and programming measurements have been utilized as a part of choices making and additionally in different procedure exercises and more scientists are included in exact approvals. The current procedures of programming measurements approvals which have encouraged the acceptances of the product measurements have been talked about in point of interest. This paper talked about the hypothetical approvals and experimental acceptances strategy in programming estimation. The properties of programming measures proposed by prominent scientists Weyuker, E.J., Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L., and Fenton, N., and Briand, L.C., Morasca, S., Basili, V.R. are talked about and audited has been introduced. In future, programming measurements research work will be International Journal of Software Engineering and Applications (IJSEA), Vol.5, No.6, November 2014 taking into account utilizing programming measurements as a part of programming improvement for the enhancing the proficiency, cost assessments and quality [22, 35, 41, 44].

REFERENCES

1 Aggarwal, K.K., Singh, Y., Kaur, A., and Malhotra, R., 2006, “Software Design Metrics for Object-Oriented Software,” Journal of Object Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January-February, pp. 121-138.

2 Alshayeb, M., and Li, W., 2003, “An Empirical Validation of Object-Oriented Metrics in Two Different Iterative Software Processes,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 11, November, pp. 1043-1049.

3 Anbumani, K., and Srinivasan, K.P., 2005, “A Set of Object-Oriented Design Metrics,” Journal of The Institution of


Engineers (India), IE(I), Journal – CP, Volume 86, May, pp. 1-9. 4 Archer C. and Stinson M.,1995, Object-Oriented Software Measures, Technical Report, Software Engineering

Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April. 5 Asad, A.A., Alsmadi, I., 2014, “Evaluating the Impact of Software Metrics on Defects Prediction. Part 2,” Computer

Science Journal of Moldova, Vol.22, No.1 (64). 6 Badri, L., and Badri, M., 2004, “A Proposal of a New Class Cohesion Criterion: An Empirical Study,” Journal of

Object Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, April, pp. 145-159. 7 Badri, L., Badri, and Gueye, A.B., 2008, “Revisiting Class Cohesion: An empirical Investigation on Several

Systems,” Journal of Object Technology, Vol. 7, No. 6, July-August, pp. 55-75. 8 Bandi, R.K., Vaishnavi, V.K., and Turk, D.E., 2003, “Predicting Maintenance Performance Using Object-Oriented

Design Complexity Metrics,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 1, January, pp. 77-87. 9 Basili, V.R., and Weiss, D.M., 1984, “A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data,” IEEE

Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-10, No. 6, November, pp. 728-738. 10 Briand, L.C., Morasca, S., Basili, V.R., 1996, “Property-Based Software Engineering Measurement,” IEEE

Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 22, No.1, January, pp. 68-85. 11 Chemiavsky, J.C., and Smith, C.H., 1991, “On Weyuker’s Axioms For Software Complexity Measures,” IEEE

Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 6, June, pp. 636-638 12 Chhabra, P., Bansal, L., 2014, “An Effective Implementation of Improved Halstead Metrics for Software Parameters

Analysis,” IJCSMC, Vol. 3, Issue. 8, August, pg.146 – 161. 13 Chhillar,R,S., Kajla, P., Chhillar, U., and Kumar, N., 2014, “An Access Control Metric Suite for Class Hierarchy of

Object-Oriented Software Systems,” International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, January.

14 Chidamber, S.R., and Kemerer, C.F., 1994, “A Metrics Suite for Object-Oriented Design,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 6, June, pp. 476-493.

15 Deligiannis, I., Shepperd, M., Roumeliotis, M., and Stamelos, I., 2003, “An Empirical Investigation of an Object-Oriented Design Heuristic for Maintainability,” The Journal of Systems and Software ,65 (2003), pp. 127–139.

16 Drouin, N., Badri, M., and Touré, F., 2013, “Metrics and Software Quality Evolution: A Case Study on Open Source Software,” International Journal on Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, June, pp. 523-527.

17 Emam, K.E., Benlarbi, S., Goel, N., and Rai, S.N., 2001, “The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Metrics,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 7, July, pp. 630-650.

18 Evanco, W.M., 2003, “Comments on ‘The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Design Metrics,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol.29, No.7, July, pp. 670-672.

19 Fenton, N.E., and Pfleeger, S.L., 2004, Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, Thomson Asia, Singapore.

20 Garg, P., Sangwan, S., Garg, R.K., 2014, “Design an Expert System for Ranking of Software Metrics,” International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 8, August, pp. 109-117.

21 Harrison, R, Counsell, S.J. and Nithi, R.V., 1998, “An Investigation into the Applicability and Validity of Object-Oriented Design Metrics,” Empirical Software Engineering, 3, pp. 255–273.

10 Jones, C., 2014,“Evaluating Software Metrics and Software Measurement Practices,” Version 4, Namcook Analytics, March, (http://Namcookanalytics.com).

11 Kaur, A., Singh, S., Kahlon, K. S., and Sandhu, P.S., 2010, “Empirical Analysis of CK and MOOD Metric Suit,” International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 5, December, pp. 447-452.

12 Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L., and Fenton, N., 1995, “Towards a Framework for Software Measurement Validation,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 21, No.12, December, pp. 929-943.

13 Kulkarni, R., Sharma, S.D., 2014, “A Metric Base Calculation for Object Oriented Software Modularization Quality Measurement,” International Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science, Vol. - 3 Issue -9 September, pp. 8175-8178.

[26] Laila Cheikhi, Rafa E. Al-Qutaish, Ali Idri1 and Asma Sellami, 2014, “ Chidamber and Kemerer Object-Oriented Measures: Analysis of their Design from the Metrology Perspective,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, Vol.8, No.2, pp.359-374

[27] Li, H.F., and Cheung, W.K., 1987, “An Empirical Study of Software Metrics,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-13, No. 6, June, pp. 697-708.

[28] Malik, N., and Chhillar, R.S., 2011, “New Design Metrics for Complexity Estimation in Object Oriented Systems,” International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 10, October, pp. 3367-3382.

[29] Misra, S., and Akman, I., 2008, “Applicability of Weyuker’s Properties on OO Metrics: Some Misunderstandings,” ComSIS, Vol. 5, No. 1, June, pp. 17-24.

[30] Muketha, G.M., Ghani, A.A.A., Selamt, M.H., and Atan, R., 2010, “A Survey of Business Complexity Metrics,” Information Technology Journal, 9 (7), pp. 1336-1344.


[31] Nigam, P., Mishra, R., 2014, “Coupling Appraisal in Object-Oriented Systems,” International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 11, May.

[32] Nyasente, S.M., Mwangi, W., Kimani, S., 2014, “A Metrics-based Framework for Measuring the Reusability of [33] Paliwal, N., Shrivastava, V., Tiwari, K., 2014, “An Approach to Find Reusability of Software Using Objet Oriented

Metrics,” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 3, March.

[34] Radhika Raju, P., and Ananda Rao, A., 2014, “A Metrics Suite for Variable Categorization to Support Program Invariants,” International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, Vol.5, No.5, September, pp. 65-83.

[35] Rajnish, K., 2014, “Theoretical Validation of Inheritance Metrics for Object-Oriented Design against Briand’s Property,” International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 3, pp. 28-33.

[36] Rajnish, K., and Bhattacherjee, V., 2005, “Complexity of Class and Development Time: A Study,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, pp. 63-70, 2005.

[37] Schneiderwind, N.F., 1992, “Methodology for Validating Software Metrics,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May, pp. 410-422.

[38] Sharma, A., Kumar, R., and Grover, P. S., 2007, “Empirical Evaluation and Critical Review of Complexity Metrics for Software Components,” Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems, Greece, pp. 24-29.

[39] Shen,V.Y., Yu, T.Y., Thebaut, M., and Paulsen, L.R., 1985, “Identifying Error-Prone Software – An Empirical Study,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-11, , No. 4, pp.317-323.

[40] Singh, V., and Bhattacherjee, V., 2014, “Assessing Package Reusability in Object-Oriented Design,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, Vol.8, No.4, pp.75-84.

[41] Srinivasan, K.P., and Devi, T., 2014, “A Novel Software Metrics and Software Coding Measurement in Software Engineering,” International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Vol. 4, Issue 1, January, pp. 303-308.

[42] Srinivasan, K.P., and Devi, T., 2009, “Design and Development of a Procedure to Test the Effectiveness of Object-Oriented Design,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Industrial Applications, Vol.2, No.6, pp. 15-25.

[43]Srinivasan, K.P., and Devi, T., 2011, “Design and Development of a Procedure for new Object-Oriented Design Metrics,” International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol.24, No.8, pp. 30-35.

[44] Srinivasan, K.P., and Devi, T., 2014, “A Complete and Comprehensive Metrics Suite for Object-Oriented Design Quality Assessment,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, Vol. 8, No. 2, February, pp.173-188. (This Paper is recognized as “Quality Paper” by SERSC, Republic of Korea and Published with Free of Cost).

[45] Srinivasan, K.P., and Devi, T., 2014, “A Comprehensive Review and Analysis on Object-Oriented Software Metrics in Software Measurement,” International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, Vol. 6, No.7, July, pp.30-35.

[46] Vanitha., N., and ThirumalaiSelvi., R., 2014, “A Report on the Analysis of Metrics and Measures on Software Quality Factors – A Literature Study,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 5 (5) , pp. 6591-6595.

[47] Weyuker, E.J., 1988, “Evaluating Software Complexity Measure,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 9, September, pp. 1357-1365.

[48] Yadav, K.P., Singh, Y., and Yadav, S., 2011, “Software Project Metrics and Measurement,” International Journal of CS and IT, Vol. 1(10), pp. 711-719.

[49] Yao, H., Orme, A.M., and Etzkorn, L., 2005, “Cohesion Metrics for Ontology Design and Application,” Journal of Computer Science, 1(1), pp. 107-113.

[50] Zuse, H., 1997, “Reply to: Property-Based Software Engineering Measurement,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 8, August, pp. 533.

AUTHORS

Dr. K.P. SRINIVASAN received his Master of Computer Applications Degree from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India in 1993. He completed his M.Phil. Degree in Computer Science from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India in 2001 and Ph. D. Degree from School of Computer Science and Engineering, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India in 2014. Presently, he is working as an Associate Professor in Computer Science in C.B.M.College, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore under Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India since 1997. He has published five conference papers and seven journal papers. He has received the best paper award from a conference and “quality paper” recognition from a reputed journal. His current research interests are in the areas of Software Engineering and Object-Oriented Systems.


Prof. Dr. T. DEVI received Master of Computer Applications Degree from P.S.G. College of Technology, Coimbatore, India in 1987 and the Ph.D. Degree from the University of Warwick, United Kingdom in 1998. Presently, she is working as a Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Applications, School of Computer Science Engineering, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India. Prior to joining Bharathiar University, she was an AssociateProfessor in Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, India. She has contributed more than 140 papers in various Journals and Conferences. Her current research interests are in the areas of Software Engineering and Concurrent Engineering.

airo international research journal volume 6 ... akhtar 1.docx · web viewproperty 3 nonuniqueness...

Documents