On the Application of Software Metrics to UML Models

  • Jacqueline A. McQuillan
  • James F. Power
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4364)


In this position paper we discuss a number of issues relating to model metrics, with particular emphasis on metrics for UML models. Our discussion is presented as a series of nine observations where we examine some of the existing work on applying metrics to UML models, present some of our own work in this area, and specify some topics for future research that we regard as important. Furthermore, we identify three categories of challeges for model metrics and describe how our nine observations can be partitioned into these categories.


software metrics object-oriented systems UML  metamodels 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fenton, N., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. International Thompson Computer Press (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briand, L.C., Daly, J.W., Wuest, J.K.: A unified framework for coupling measurement in object-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(1), 91–121 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briand, L.C., Daly, J.W., Wuest, J.K.: A unified framework for cohesion measurement in object-oriented systems. Empirical Software Engineering 3(1), 65–117 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilkie, F.G., Harmer, T.J.: Tool support for measuring complexity in heterogeneous object-oriented software. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, Montréal, Canada, October 3-6 2002, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reißing, R.: Towards a model for object-oriented design measurement. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McQuillan, J.A., Power, J.F.: Experiences of using the Dagstuhl Middle Metamodel for defining software metrics. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Principles and Practices of Programming in Java, Manheim, Germany, August 30 - September 1 2006, pp. 194–198 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Object Management Group: UML 2.0 draft superstructure specification (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Wakil, M.M., El-Bastawisi, A., Riad, M.B., Fahmy, A.A.: A novel approach to formalize object-oriented design metrics. In: Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Keele, UK, April 11-12 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baroni, A.L., Brito e Abreu, F.: e: A formal library for aiding metrics extraction. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goulão, M., Brito e Abreu, F.: Formalizing metrics for COTS. In: ICSE Workshop on Models and Processes for the Evaluation of COTS Components, Edinburgh, Scotland, May 25 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McQuillan, J., Power, J.: A definition of the Chidamber and Kemerer metrics suite for the Unified Modeling Language. Technical Report NUIM-CS-TR-2006-03, Dept. of Computer Science, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland (October 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McQuillan, J., Power, J.: Towards re-usable metric definitions at the meta-level. In: PhD Workshop of the 20th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Nantes, France, July 4 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halstead, M.: Elements of Software Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1977)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marchesi, M.: OOA metrics for the Unified Modeling Language. In: Second Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, Florence, Italy, March 8-11 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Genero, M., Piattini, M., Calero, C.: Early measures for UML class diagrams. L’Object 6(4), 489–515 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genero, M.: A controlled experiment for validating class diagram structural complexity metrics. In: International Conference on Object-Oriented Information Systems, Montpellier, France, September 2-5 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yi, T., Wu, F., Gan, C.: A comparison of metrics for UML class diagrams. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 29(5), 1–6 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Genero, M., Miranda, D., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for UML statechart diagrams. In: 6th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-oriented engineering, Malaga, Spain, June 11 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, H., Boldyreff, C.: Developing software metrics applicaple to UML models. In: 6th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-oriented engineering, Malaga, Spain, June 11 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basili, V., Briand, L., Melo, W.: A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22(10), 751–761 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baroni, A.L., Brito e Abreu, F.: An OCL-based formalization of the MOOSE metric suite. In: Proceedings of ECOOP Workshop on Quantative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering, Darmstadt, Germany, July 22 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tang, M.-H., Chen, M.-H.: Measuring OO design metrics from UML. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) «UML» 2002 - The Unified Modeling Language. Model Engineering, Concepts, and Tools. LNCS, vol. 2460, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guéhéneuc, Y., Albin-Amiot, H.: Recovering binary class relationships: putting icing on the UML cake. In: Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 24-28 2004, pp. 301–314 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arisholm, E., Briand, L.C., Foyen, A.: Dynamic coupling measures for object-oriented software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(8), 491–506 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitchell, Á., Power, J.F.: A study of the influence of coverage on the relationship between static and dynamic coupling metrics. Science of Computer Programming 59(1-2), 4–25 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sim, S.E., Easterbrook, S.M., Holt, R.C.: Using benchmarking to advance research: A challenge to software engineering. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, Oregon, USA, May 3-10 2003, pp. 74–83 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maletic, J., Marcus, A.: CFB: A call for benchmarks - for software visualization. In: 2nd IEEE Workshop of Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 22 2003, pp. 108–113. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shirabad, J.S., Menzies, T.J.: The PROMISE Repository of Software Engineering Databases. School of Information Technology and Engineering, University of Ottawa, Canada (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheng, B., France, R., Bieman, J.: ReMoDD: A repository for model driven developmentGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Holt, R., Schürr, A., Sim, S., Winter, A.: GXL: A graph-based standard exchange format for reengineering. Science of Computer Programming 60(2), 149–170 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kraft, N.A., Malloy, B.A., Power, J.F.: Toward an infrastructure to support interoperability in reverse engineering. In: Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA, November 8-11 2005, pp. 196–205 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline A. McQuillan
    • 1
  • James F. Power
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. KildareIreland

Personalised recommendations