Validity of the Documentation Availability Model: Experimental Definition of Quality Interpretation

  • Raimundas Matulevičius
  • Naji Habra
  • Flora Kamseu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6051)

Abstract

System and software documentation is a necessity when making selection and acquisition decisions, when developing new and/or improving existing system and software functionality. A proper documentation becomes even more crucial for open source systems (OSS), where, typically, stakeholders from different communities are involved. However there exist only limited or no methodology to assess documentation quality. In this paper we present a quality model and a comprehensive method to assess quality of the OSS documentation availability (DA). Our contribution is threefold. Firstly, based on the criteria defined by Kitchenham et al. we illustrate the theoretical validity of the DA model. Secondly, we execute the first step towards the empirical validity of the DA model. Finally, our work results in a comprehensive and empirically grounded interpretation model of the documentation quality.

Keywords

Documentation availability theoretical and empirical validity quality metrics and indicators open source software documentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boehm, B., Brown, J.R., Kaspar, J.R., Lipow, M., MacLoed, G.J., Merritt, M.J.: Characteristics of Software Quality, TRW Series of Software Technology. North-Holland Pub., Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis, A., Overmyer, S., Jordan, K., Caruso, J., Dandashi, F., Dinh, A., Kincaid, G., Ledeboer, G., Reynolds, P., Srimani, P., Ta, A., Theofanos, M.: Identifying and Measuring Quality in a Software Requirements Specification. In: Proceeding of the 1st International Software Metrics Symposium, pp. 141–152 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deprez, J.-C., Haaland, K., Kamseu, F.: QualOSS Methodology and QualOSS Assessment Method, Deliverable D4.1, http://www.qualoss.org/deliverables (last checked 28.02.2010)
  4. 4.
    Le Vie Jr., D.S.: Documentation Metrics: What Do You Really Want to Measure? http://www.stc.org/intercom/PDFs/2000/200012_06-09.pdf (last checked 28.02.2010)
  5. 5.
    El Emam, K., Drouin, J.-N., Melo, W.: SPICE. In: The Theory and Practice and Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forward, J.A., Lethbridge, T.C.: Qualities of Relevant Software Documentation: an Industrial Study, http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~tcl/gradtheses/aforward/papers/aforward_icse2003_sub.pdf (last checked 28.02.2010)
  7. 7.
    IEEE: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Design Descriptions, IEEE Std 1016-1998 (1998) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEEE: IEEE Standard for Software Maintenance, IEEE Std 1219-1998 (1998) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IEEE: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specification, IEEE Std 830-1998 (1998) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEEE: IEEE Standard for Software Project Management Plans, IEEE Std 1058-1998 (1998) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IEEE: IEEE Standard for Software Test Documentation, IEEE Std 829-1998 (1998) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IEEE: IEEE Standard for Software User Documentation, IEEE Std 1063-2001 (2001) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC: Information Technology – Software Product Evaluation– Quality Characteristics and Guide Lines for their Use. ISO/IEC IS 9126, Switzerland (1991) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Izquierdo, D., Herraiz, I.: Qualoss 3.1 measurement Targets, Deliverable D3.2, http://www.qualoss.org/deliverables (last checked 28.02.2010)
  15. 15.
    Jazzar, A., Scacchi, W.: Understanding the Requirements for Information System Documentation: an Empirical Investigation. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (COOCS 1995), pp. 268–279. ACM, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfeeger, S.L., Fenton, N.: Towards a Framework for Software Measurement Validation. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. 21(12) (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loconsole, A., Borstler, J.: Theoretical Validation and Case Study of Requirements Management Measures. Technical report UMINF-03.02, Department of Computing Science, Umea University (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matulevičius, R., Kamseu, F., Habra, N.: Measuring Open Source Documentation Availability. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Quality Engineering in Software Technology (CONQUEST 2009), dpunkt.verlag GmbH, pp. 83–102 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCall, J.A., Richards, P.K., Walters, G.F.: Factors in Software Quality, RADC TR-77-369, Vols I, II, III, US Rome Air Development Center Reports NTIS AD/A-049 014, 015, 055 (1977)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., Weber, C.: Capability Maturity Model for Software: Version 1.1. Technical Report SEI-93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh, N.: Maintaining Quality Control in Documentation. In: Proceedings of Society for Technical Communication (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schiesser, R.: How does your process documentation measure up?, http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1053164.html (last checked 28.02.2010)
  23. 23.
    Soto, M., Ciolkowski, M., Deprez, J.-C., Ruiz, J., Herraiz, I., Campos, C.G., Matulevičius, R.: Metrics and Indicators of the Standard QualOSS Assessment Method, Deliverable D4.2, http://www.qualoss.org/deliverables (last checked 28.02.2010)
  24. 24.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Høst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raimundas Matulevičius
    • 1
    • 2
  • Naji Habra
    • 1
  • Flora Kamseu
    • 1
  1. 1.PReCISE, Computer Science FacultyUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations