On the Evolution of Quality Conceptualization Techniques

  • Vladimir A. Shekhovtsov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6520)


We investigate the notion of software product quality from the point of view of its integration into the modeling activities on the same level of abstraction as traditional functional models (a conceptualization of quality). We pay special attention to the evolution of the approaches for obtaining this conceptualization through the history of conceptual modeling, propose their classification according to common attributes and outline their distinguishing features. Based on the proposed classification, we outline a way of establishing an evaluation framework for quality conceptualizations aiming at supporting the choice of a conceptualization solution best suited for the problem at hand.


software product quality conceptual modeling quality conceptualization quality model quality ontology quality evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aagedal, J., de Miguel, M.A., Fafournoux, E., Lund, M.S., Stolen, K.: UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms, Technical Report TR 2004-06-01. OMG (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Naeem, T., Gorton, I., Babar, M.A., Rabhi, F.A., Benatallah, B.: A quality-driven systematic approach for architecting distributed software applications. In: Roman, G.-C., Griswold, W.G., Nuseibeh, B. (eds.) Proc. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2005), pp. 244–253. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al Balushi, T.H., Sampaio, P.R.F., Dabhi, D., Loucopoulos, P.: ElicitO: A Quality Ontology-Guided NFR Elicitation Tool. In: Sawyer, P., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2007. LNCS, vol. 4542, pp. 306–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alvaro, A., de Almeida, S.: A software component quality framework. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 35, 1–18 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ameller, D., Gutierrez, F., Cabot, J.: Dealing with non-functional requirements in model-driven development. Report ESSI-TR-10-05. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Apvrille, L., Courtiat, J.-P., Lohr, C., de Saqui-Sannes, P.: TURTLE: A Real-Time UML Profile Supported by Formal Validation Toolkit. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30, 473–487 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aßmann, U., Zschaler, S.: Ontologies, Meta-models, and the Model-Driven Paradigm. In: Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology, pp. 255–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Babar, M.A., Zhu, L., Jeffery, R.: A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. In: Proc. 15th Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2004), pp. 309–318. IEEE Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bajnaid, N., Cogan, B., Al-Nuaim, H.: Software quality ontology for teaching: a development methodology’s issues. In: Proc. 5th International Innovations in Information Technology (IIT 2008), pp. 352–356 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bansiya, J., Davis, C.G.: A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28, 4–17 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker, J., Janiesch, C., Pfeiffer, D., Seidel, S.: Evolutionary method engineering: towards a method for the analysis and conception of management information systems. In: Proc. 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2006), pp. 3686–3697 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Behkamal, B., Kahani, M., Akbari, M.K.: Customizing ISO 9126 quality model for evaluation of B2B applications. Information and Software Technology 51, 599–609 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bertoa, M., Vallecillo, A., Garc¡a, F.: An Ontology for Software Measurement. In: Calero, C., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M. (eds.) Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology, pp. 175–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boehm, B., In, H.: Identifying Quality-Requirements Conflicts. IEEE Software 13, 25–35 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., MacLeod, G.J., Merritt, M.J.: Characteristics of Software Quality. North Holland, New York (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buglione, L., Kececi, N., Abran, A.: An Integrated Graphical Assessment for Managing Software Product Quality. In: Proc. 12th International Software Quality Conference (ICSQ 2002), Ottawa, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burgués, X., Franch, X., Ribó, J.M.: A MOF-Compliant Approach to Software Quality Modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cachero, C., Calero, C., Poels, G.: Metamodeling the Quality of the Web Development Process’ Intermediate Artifacts. In: Baresi, L., Fraternali, P., Houben, G.-J. (eds.) ICWE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4607, pp. 74–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carvalho, F., Meira, S.R.L., Xavier, E., Eulino, J.: An Embedded Software Component Maturity Model. In: Choi, B. (ed.) Proc. 9th International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC 2009), pp. 426–431. IEEE Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carvallo, J.P.: Systematic Construction of Quality Models for COTS-Based Systems. PhD Thesis. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X., Quer, C.: Building and Using Quality Models for Complex Software Domains. Technical Report LSI-03-28-R. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cazzola, W., Jezequel, J.M., Rashid, A.: Semantic join point models: Motivations, notions and requirements. In: Proc. Software Engineering Properties of Languages and Aspect Technologies Workshop (SPLAT 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charfi, A., Müller, H., Mezini, M.: Aspect-Oriented Business Process Modeling with AO4BPMN. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 48–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choi, Y., Lee, S., Song, H., Park, J., Kim, S.H.: Practical S/W Component Quality Evaluation Model. In: Proc. 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT 2008), pp. 259–264. IEEE Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chung, L., do Prado Leite, J.: On Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cote, M., Suryn, W., Georgiadou, E.: Software Quality Model Requirements for Software Quality Engineering. In: Proc. 14th International Conference on Software Quality Management (SQM 2006), pp. 31–50 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cote, M.A., Suryn, W., Georgiadou, E.: In search for a widely applicable and accepted software quality model for software quality engineering. Software Quality Journal 15, 401–416 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dai, L., Cooper, K.: Modeling and analysis of non-functional requirements as aspects in a UML based architecture design. In: Proc. 6th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD 2005), pp. 178–183. IEEE Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Milton, S., Rosemann, M.: Analyzing and comparing ontologies with meta-models. In: Krogstie, J., Halpin, T., Siau, K. (eds.) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, pp. 1–16. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Boer, R.C., van Vliet, H.: QuOnt: an ontology for the reuse of quality criteria. In: Proc. ICSE Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge (SHARK 2009), pp. 57–64. IEEE Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deissenboeck, F., Juergens, E., Lochmann, K., Wagner, S.: Software quality models: Purposes, usage scenarios and requirements. In: Proc. 7th International Workshop on Software Quality (WoSQ 2009), pp. 9–14. IEEE Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Deissenboeck, F., Wagner, S., Pizka, M., Teuchert, S., Girard, J.F.: An activity-based quality model for maintainability. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2007), pp. 184–193. IEEE Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deneckere, R., Iacovelli, A., Kornyshova, E., Souveyet, C.: From Method Fragments to Method Services. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Proper, E. (eds.) Proc. 13th Intl Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2008). CEUR-WS, vol. 337, pp. 80–96 (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dieste, O., Genero, M., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: A Proposal of A Measure Of Completeness For Conceptual Models. In: Piattini, M., Genero, M., Calero, C. (eds.) Metrics for Software Conceptual Models, pp. 19–57. Imperial College Press, London (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dinkel, M., Baumgarten, U.: Modeling nonfunctional requirements: a basis for dynamic systems management. ACM Software Engineering Notes 30, 1–8 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dromey, R.G.: Cornering the Chimera. IEEE Software 13, 33–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eichberg, M., Awasthi, P., Ostermann, K.: Pointcuts as functional queries. In: Chin, W.-N. (ed.) APLAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3302, pp. 366–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ekelhart, A., Fenz, S., Klemen, M., Weippl, E.: Security Ontology: Simulating Threats to Corporate Assets. In: Bagchi, A., Atluri, V. (eds.) ICISS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4332, pp. 249–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, G., Duarte, K.C.: An ontological approach to domain engineering. In: Proc. 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2002), pp. 351–358. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fenton, N., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software metrics: a rigorous and practical approach. PWS Publishing, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Firesmith, D.G., Capell, P., Hammons, C.B., Latimer, D.W., Merendino, T.: The Method Framework for Engineering System Architectures. Auerbach Pubs, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Flake, S., Müller, W.: A UML profile for real-time constraints with the OCL. In: Li, J., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 179–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fuentes, L., Sanchez, P.: Towards executable aspect-oriented UML models. In: Proc. AOM Workshop at AOSD 2007, pp. 28–34. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Galster, M., Bucherer, E.: A taxonomy for identifying and specifying non-functional requirements in service-oriented development. In: Proc. IEEE Congress on Services (SERVICES 2008) - Part I, pp. 345–352. IEEE Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: A Geometry of Thought. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gasparini, I., Lichtnow, D., Pimenta, M.S., de Oliveira, J.P.M.: Quality Ontology for Recommendation in an Adaptive Educational System. In: Proc. International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCOS 2009), pp. 329–334. IEEE Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gilb, T.: Principles of Software Engineering Management. Addison Wesley, Reading (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Glinz, M.: On Non-Functional Requirements. In: Proc. 15th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE 2007), pp. 21–26. IEEE Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grassi, V., Mirandola, R., Sabetta, A.: From design to analysis models: a kernel language for performance and reliability analysis of component-based systems. In: Proc. 5th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2005), pp. 25–36. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hakkarainen, S., Strasunskas, D., Hella, L., Tuxen, S.: Choosing appropriate method guidelines for web-ontology building. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 270–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyte, J.: Situational Method Engineering: State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of Universal Computer Science 16, 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    IEEE 1061-1998: IEEE Standard for Software Quality Metrics Methodology. IEEE Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1, Software Engineering – Product Quality – Part 1:Quality model. International Organization for Standardization (2001)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    ISO/IEC FCD 25010: Systems and software engineering – System and software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – System and software quality models. International Organization for Standardization (2010) Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jureta, I.: Essays in Information Management: Contributions to the Modeling and Analysis of Quality in Information Systems Engineering, PhD Thesis. Department of Business Administration. University of Namur (2008)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jureta, I., Mylopoulos, J., Faulkner, S.: A core ontology for requirements. Applied Ontology 4, 169–244 (2009)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jureta, I.J., Herssens, C., Faulkner, S.: A Comprehensive Quality Model for Service-Oriented Systems. Software Quality Journal 17, 65–98 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kabilan, V., Johannesson, P., Ruohomaa, S., Moen, P., Herrmann, A., Ehlfeldt, R.M., Weigand, H.: Introducing the Common Non-Functional Ontology. In: Gonçalves, R.J., Müller, J.P., Mertins, K., Zelm, M. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability II, pp. 633–645. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kaschek, R., Pavlov, R., Shekhovtsov, V., Zlatkin, S.: Characterization and tool supported selection of business process modeling methodologies. In: Abramowicz, W., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) Technologies for Business Information Systems, pp. 25–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kassab, M., Ormandjieva, O., Daneva, M.: An Ontology Based approach to Non-Functional Requirements Conceptualization. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (SEA 2009), pp. 299–308. IEEE Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kayed, A., Hirzalla, N., Samhan, A.A., Alfayoumi, M.: Towards an Ontology for Software Product Quality Attributes. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services (ICIW 2009), pp. 200–204. IEEE Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kazman, R., Bass, L., Klein, M., Lattance, T., Northrop, L.: A Basis for Analyzing Software Architecture Analysis Methods. Software Quality Journal 13, 329–355 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Khomh, F., Gueheneuc, Y.G.: DEQUALITE: Building Design-based Software Quality Models. In: Proc. SPAQU 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kim, E., Lee, Y.: Quality Model for Web Services 2.0. OASIS (2005)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kim, H., Fox, M.S., Gruninger, M.: An Ontology of Quality for Enterprise Modelling. In: Proc. ETICE 1995, pp. 105–116. IEEE Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software quality: the elusive target. IEEE Software 13, 12–21 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Koellmann, C., Kutvonen, L., Linington, P., Solberg, A.: An aspect-oriented approach to manage QoS dependability dimensions in model driven development. In: Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Model-Driven Enterprise Information Systems (MDEIS 2007), pp. 85–94. INSTICC Press (2007)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckere, R., Salinesi, C.: Method Chunks Selection by Multicriteria Techniques: an Extension of the Assembly-based Approach. In: Ralyte, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Krechetov, I., Tekinerdogan, B., Garcia, A., Chavez, C., Kulesza, U.: Towards an Integrated Aspect-Oriented Modeling Approach for Software Architecture Design. In: Proc. AOM Workshop at AOSD 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Krogstie, J.: Integrating the understanding of quality in requirements specification and conceptual modeling. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 23, 86–91 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kumar, A., Grover, P.S., Kumar, R.: A quantitative evaluation of aspect-oriented software quality model (AOSQUAMO). ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 34, 1–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lee, J.Y., Lee, J.W., Du Wan Cheun, S.D.K.: A Quality Model for Evaluating Software-as-a-Service in Cloud Computing. In: Proc. SERMA 2009, pp. 261–266. IEEE, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lera, I., Sancho, P.P., Juiz, C., Puigjaner, R., Zottl, J., Haring, G.: Performance assessment of intelligent distributed systems through software performance ontology engineering (SPOE). Software Quality Journal 15, 53–67 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Magoutas, B., Halaris, C., Mentzas, G.: An Ontology for the Multi-Perspective Evaluation of Quality in E-government Services. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 318–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Malak, G., Badri, L., Badri, M., Sahraoui, H.: Towards a multidimensional model for web-based applications quality assessment. In: Bauknecht, K., Bichler, M., Pröll, B. (eds.) EC-Web 2004. LNCS, vol. 3182, pp. 316–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S.: Qualities in formal ontology. In: Hitzler, P., Lutz, C., Stumme, G. (eds.) Proc. Workshop on Foundational Aspects of Ontologies (FOnt 2005), pp. 2–16 (2005)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies. WonderWeb Deliverable D18. Ontology Library (final). ISTC-CNR, Trento (2003)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    McCall, J.A., Richards, P.K., Walters, G.F.: Factors in Software Quality. NTIS (1977)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    McQuillan, J.A., Power, J.F.: Towards the re-usability of software metric definitions at the meta level. In: ECOOP PhD Workshop (2006)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mead, N.R., Hough, E.D., Stehney, T.R.: Security Quality Requirements Engineering (SQUARE) Methodology. Software Engineering Institute, Stanford (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Meier, S., Reinhard, T., Seybold, C., Glinz, M.: Aspect-Oriented Modeling with Integrated Object Models. In: Modellierung 2006. LNI, vol. 82, pp. 129–144. GI, Bonn (2006)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55, 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Morasca, S.: A probability-based approach for measuring external attributes of software artifacts. In: Proc. ESEM 2009, pp. 44–55. IEEE Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nam, J.: Web portal quality. In: Proc. SOLI 2009, pp. 163–168. IEEE Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Neuhaus, F., Grenon, P., Smith, B.: A formal theory of substances, qualities, and universals. In: Varzi, A., Vieu, L. (eds.) FOIS 2004, pp. 49–59. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Obrst, L., Ceusters, W., Mani, I., Ray, S., Smith, B.: The Evaluation of Ontologies Toward Improved Semantic Interoperability. In: Baker, C.J.O., Cheung, K.-H. (eds.) Semantic Web: Revolutionizing Knowledge Discovery in the Life Sciences, pp. 139–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Olive, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pastor, O., Molina, J.C.: Model-Driven Architecture in Practice. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Piattini, M., Genero, M., Poels, G., Nelson, J.: Towards a Framework for Conceptual Modelling Quality. In: Piattini, M., Genero, M., Calero, C. (eds.) Metrics for Software Conceptual Models, pp. 1–18. Imperial College Press, London (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Plaza, I., Igual, R., Marcuello, J.J., Sanchez, S., Arcega, F.: Proposal of a Quality Model for Educational Software. In: Proc. EAEEIE 2009, pp. 1–6 (2009)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ralyte, J., Deneckere, R., Rolland, C.: Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 95–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Riaz, M., Mendes, E., Tempero, E.: A systematic review of software maintainability prediction and metrics. In: Proc. ESEM 2009, pp. 367–377. IEEE Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Medina, E., Piattini, M.: Capturing Security Requirements in Business Processes Through a UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams Profile. In: Roddick, J., Benjamins, V.R., Si-said Cherfi, S., Chiang, R., Claramunt, C., Elmasri, R.A., Grandi, F., Han, H., Hepp, M., Lytras, M.D., Mišić, V.B., Poels, G., Song, I.-Y., Trujillo, J., Vangenot, C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4231, pp. 32–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Rolland, C.: Method engineering: towards methods as services. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5007, pp. 10–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Saeki, M.: Embedding metrics into information systems development methods: An application of method engineering technique. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 374–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Schauerhuber, A., Schwinger, W., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., Wimmer, M.: Towards a common reference architecture for aspect-oriented modeling. In: Proc. AOM Workshop at AOSD 2006. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C.: Capturing the Semantics of Quality Requirements into an Intermediate Predesign Model. In: Hesse, W., Oberweis, A. (eds.): SIGSAND-EUROPE 2008 Symposium. LNI, vol. P-129, pp. 25–37. GI, Bonn (2008)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shim, B., Choue, S., Kim, S., Park, S.: A Design Quality Model for Service-Oriented Architecture. In: Proc. APSEC 2008, pp. 403–410 (2008)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sibisi, M., van Waveren, C.C.: A process framework for customising software quality models. In: Proc. AFRICON 2007, pp. 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Soeldner, G., Kapitza, R., Schober, S.: AOCI: ontology-based pointcuts. In: Proc. 8th Workshop on Aspects, Components, and Patterns for Infrastructure Software, pp. 25–30. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Stefani, A., Xenos, M.: E-commerce system quality assessment using a model based on ISO 9126 and Belief Networks. Software Quality Journal 16, 107–129 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Stein, D., Hanenberg, S., Unland, R.: Query Models. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 98–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Suryn, W., Abran, A., Laporte, C.: An integrated life cycle quality model for general public market software products. In: Proc. BSI 2004, pp. 5–7 (2004)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Susi, A., Perini, A., Mylopoulos, J.: The Tropos Metamodel and its Use. Informatica 29, 401–408 (2005)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Tian, J.: Quality-Evaluation Models and Measurements. IEEE Software 21, 84–91 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Tsadimas, A., Nikolaidou, M., Anagnostopoulos, D.: Handling non-functional requirements in Information System Architecture Design. In: Proc. SEA 2009, pp. 59–64. IEEE Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time, version 1.0. OMG (2003) Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: Meta-modeling for situational analysis and design methods. In: Handbook of Research on Modern Systems Analysis and Design Technologies and Applications, pp. 35–54. IGI Global, Hershey-New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Wada, H., Suzuki, J., Oba, K.: Modeling Non-Functional Aspects in Service Oriented Architecture. In: Proc. SCC 2006, pp. 222–229. IEEE Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Wagner, S., Deissenboeck, F.: An integrated approach to quality modelling. In: Proc. WoSQ 2007. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Winter, S., Goeb, A., Klaes, M.: Quality models in practice: A preliminary analysis. In: Proc. ESEM 2009, pp. 464–467. IEEE Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wu, C., Lin, H.L.: Integrating fuzzy theory and hierarchy concepts to evaluate software quality. Software Quality Journal 16, 263–276 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Ngu, A.H.H., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J., Chang, H.: QoS-aware Middleware for Web Services Composition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30, 311–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Zhou, J., Niemelä, E., Evesti, A.: Ontology-Based Software Reliability Modelling. In: Proc. SSVM 2007, pp. 17–31 (2007)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Zhu, L., Gorton, I.: UML Profiles for Design Decisions and Non-Functional Requirements. In: Proc. ICSE Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge (SHARK 2007). IEEE Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir A. Shekhovtsov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer-Aided Management SystemsNational Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute”Ukraine

Personalised recommendations