Advertisement

A Goal-Oriented Strategy for Supporting Commercial Off-the-Shelf Components Selection

  • Claudia Ayala
  • Xavier Franch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4039)

Abstract

The use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components is becoming a strategic need because they offer the possibility to build systems at reduced costs and within shorter development time. Having efficient and reliable COTS components selection methods is a key issue not only for exploiting the potential benefits of this technology, but also for facing the problems and risks involved. Searching COTS components requires to overcome several obstacles: the growing size and evolvability of the COTS marketplace, the dependencies from the components to be selected with others, and the type of descriptions currently available for those components. In this paper, we present a goal-oriented strategy for an effective localization, analysis and structuring of COTS components information. Our proposal is the GOThIC method, which provides methodological support to the construction of taxonomies. We present the seven activities that conform this method, which are illustrated with the case of real-time synchronous communication tools.

Keywords

Session Initiation Protocol Market Segment Software Client Communication Establish IEEE Software 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Li, J., Conradi, R., et al.: Validation of New Thesis on Off-The-Shelf Component-Based Development. In: Proceedings 11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruhe, G.: Intelligent Support for Selection of COTS Products. In: Chaudhri, A.B., et al. (eds.) NODe-WS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2593, pp. 34–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morisio, M., et al.: COTS-based software development: Processes and open issues. Journal of Systems and Software 61(3) (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prieto-Díaz, R., Freeman, P.: Classifying Software for Reusability. IEEE Software (January 1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franch, X., Maiden, N.: Modelling Component Dependencies to Inform their Selection. In: Erdogmus, H., Weng, T. (eds.) ICCBSS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2580, pp. 81–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baskerville, R., Wood-Harper, A.T.: Diversity in Information Systems Action Research Methods. European Journal on Information Systems 7(2) (June 1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin, P., Turner, B.: Grounded Theory and Organizational Research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22, 141–157 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X., et al.: 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.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Proceedings 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antón, A.I.: Goal Identification and Refinement in the Specification of Software-Based Information Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (June 1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ayala, C.P., Botella, P., Franch, X.: On Goal-Oriented COTS Taxonomies Construction. In: Franch, X., Port, D. (eds.) ICCBSS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3412, pp. 90–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gartner Inc., http://www.gartner.com
  13. 13.
    Forrester Research Inc., http://www.forrester.com
  14. 14.
    ComponentSource, componentsource.com
  15. 15.
    Genium Software Development, http://www.genium.dk/index.xml
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Arranga, E.: Cobol Tools: Overview and Taxonomy. IEEE Software 17(2), 59–61 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Llorens, J., Astudillo, H.: Automatic Generation of Hierarchical Taxonomies from Free Text Using Linguistic Algorithms. In: Bruel, J.-M., Bellahsène, Z. (eds.) OOIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2426, pp. 74–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glass, R.L., Vessey, I.: Contemporary Application-Domain Taxonomies. IEEE Software (July 1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Ochs, M.A., Pfahl, D., et al.: A Method for Efficient Measurement-based COTS Assessment and Selection-Method Description and Evaluation Results. In: Proceedings IEEE 7th International Software Metrics Symposium (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carney, D., Long, F.: What Do You Mean by COTS? Finally a Useful Answer. IEEE Software 17(2) (March/April 2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bianchi, A., Caivano, D., et al.: COTS Products Characterization: Proposal and Empirical Assessment. In: Conradi, R., Wang, A.I. (eds.) ESERNET 2001. LNCS, vol. 2765, pp. 2001–2003. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Erofeev, S., DiGiacomo, P.: Usage of Dynamic Decision Models as an Agile Approach to COTS Taxonomies Construction. In: International Conference on COTS-Based Software Systems (ICCBSS 2006). IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cechich, A., Réquilé-Romanczuk, A., et al.: Trends on COTS Component Identification and Retrieval. In: International Conference on COTS-Based Software Systems (ICCBSS 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Réquilé-Romanczuk, et al.: Towards a Knowledge-Based Framework for COTS Component Identification. In: ICSE-MPEC 2005, USA. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    UML Specifications, http://www.uml.org/
  31. 31.
    Prieto-Díaz, R., Arango, G.: Domain Analysis and Software Systems Modelling, p. 300. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1991)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ISO/IEC International Standard 9126-1: Software Engineering-Product Quality-Part 1: Quality Model (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leite, J.C.S.P.: Application Languages: A Product of Requirements Analysis. Informatics Department PUC-/RJ (1989)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Regev, G.: Where do Goals Come from: the Underlying Principles of Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering. In: 13th IEEE Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Potts, C., Takanashi, K., Antón, A.: Inquiry-Based Requirements Analysis. IEEE Software 11(2) (March 1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yu, E.: Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering. Ph.D Thesis, University of Toronto (1995)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ayala, C., Franch, X.: Transforming Software Package Classification Hierarchies into Goal-Based Taxonomies. In: Andersen, K.V., Debenham, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3588, pp. 665–675. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ayala, C., Franch, X.: A process for Building Goal-Oriented COTS Taxonomies. LSI-Department. Technical University of Catalunya, Report Number: LSI-06-7-R (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Ayala
    • 1
  • Xavier Franch
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations