A MOF-Compliant Approach to Software Quality Modeling

  • Xavier Burgués
  • Xavier Franch
  • Josep M. Ribó
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3716)


Software quality is a many-faceted concept that depends on the kind of artifact to be measured, the context where measurement takes place, the quality framework used, and others. Furthermore, there is a great deal of standards, white papers, and in general proposals of any kind related to software quality. Consequently, a unified software quality framework seems to be needed to compare, combine or select these proposals and to define new ones. In this paper we propose a MOF-compliant approach for structuring quality models in order to formalise software quality issues and deal with quality information modelling. We propose two types of models: a generic model, situated in the M2 MOF layer; and a hierarchy of reference models, defined in the M1 and M0 MOF layers. The generic model elements are derived from the UML metamodel by specialization. Then, we can instantiate them to get reference models that formalise (combinations of) existing proposals which may be further refined for defining quality frameworks to be used in different experiences. Each of these models is divided into three parts, namely fundamental concepts, metrics and context. We illustrate our proposal providing a multi-level reference model in the context of collection libraries quality evaluation.


Reference Model Software Quality Quality Framework Software Domain Collection Library 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arnold, K., Gosling, J., Holmes, D.: The Java Programming Language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.: Goal-Question-Metric Paradigm. In: Enciclopedya of Software Engineering. John Wiley, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brassard, G., Bratley, P.: Fundamentals of Algorithmics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, A.L., Calero, C., Piattini, M., Brito, F.: A Formal Definition for Object-Relational Database Metrics. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Miami, USA (May 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burgués, X., Franch, X.: Formalising Software Quality using a Hierarchy of Quality Models. In: Galindo, F., Takizawa, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) DEXA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3180, pp. 741–750. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.: How good are these UML diagrams? An empirical test of the Wand and Weber good decomposition model. In: Proceedings 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X., Quer, C., Torchiano, M.: Characterization of a Taxonomy for Business Applications and the Relationships Among Them. In: Kazman, R., Port, D. (eds.) ICCBSS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2959. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    UML Profile for CORBA. OMG document formal/02-04-01. Available at Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Common Warehouse Metamodel Specification. OMG document formal/2003-03-02Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Firesmith, D.G.: Using Quality Models to Engineer Quality Requirements. Journal of Object Technology 2(5) (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fenton, N., Pfleeger, S.: Software Metrics:A Rigorous Practical Approach. PWS (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franch, X., Ribó, J.M.: A two-tiered Methodology for Metamodel Extension Applied to UML 1.4. Technical Report LSI-04-51-R, LSI-UPC (November 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finkelstein, A., Spanoudakis, G., Ryan, M.: Software Package Requirements and Procurement. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD) (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gartner Consulting (Last accessed November 2004),
  16. 16.
    García, F., Ruíz, F., Bertoa, M.F., Calero, C., Genero, M., Olsina, L., Martín, M., Quer, C., Tondori, N., Abrahao, S., Vallecillo, A., Piattini, M.: Una Ontología de la Medición del Software. Informe Técnico UCLM DIAB-04-04-2 (Febrero 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goulao, M., Brito, F.: Formalising Metrics for COTS. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop of Models and Processes for the Evaluation of COTS components (MPEC), held jointly with ICSE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and Validating Measures for Conceptual Data Model Quality. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, p. 724. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glass, R., Vessey, I.: Contemporary Application Domain Taxonomies. IEEE Software 12(4) (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    IEEE Standard 1061-1992. Standard for a software quality metrics methodology (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO/IEC Standard 9126-1 Software Engineering – Product Quality – Part 1 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO/IEC Standard 9126-2 Software Engineering – Product Quality – Part 2 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jiang, Y., Shao, W., Zhang, L., Ma, Z., Meng, X., Ma, H.: On the Classification of UML’s Meta Model Extension. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kitchenham, B., Hugues, R., Linkman, S.G.: Modeling Software Measurement Data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(9) (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keller, S., Kahn, L., Panara, R.: Specifying Software Quality Requirements with Metrics. In: System and Software Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    MOF 2.0 Core Final Adopted Specification. Document ptc/03-10-04Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moody, D.L.: Metrics for Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 211–225. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Musser, D.R., Saini, A.: STL Tutorial and Reference Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mehlhorn, K., Näher, S.: The LEDA Platform of Combinatorial and Geometric Computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olsina, L., Martín, M.A.: Ontology for Software Metrics and Indicators: Building Process and Decisions Taken. In: Koch, N., Fraternali, P., Wirsing, M. (eds.) ICWE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3140, pp. 176–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saeki, M.: Embeding metrics into Information Systems Development Methods: an Application of Method Engineering Technique. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Software Engineering Institute (CMU). The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM).OMG doc. formal/2005-01-06Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stevens, S.S.: On the theory of scale types and measurement. Science 103 (1946)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    UML testing profile. OMG document ptc/04-04-02Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    UML 2.0 Infrastructure Final Adopted Specification, document ptc/03-09-15 and UML 2.0 Superstructure Final Adopted Specification, document ptc/03-08-02, available at (last accessed March 2005)
  37. 37.
    Zuse, H.: Framework of Software Measurement. De Gruyter, Berlag (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Burgués
    • 1
  • Xavier Franch
    • 1
  • Josep M. Ribó
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Universitat de Lleida (UdL)LleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations