A Quality Model for Mashups

  • Cinzia Cappiello
  • Florian Daniel
  • Agnes Koschmider
  • Maristella Matera
  • Matteo Picozzi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6757)


Despite several years of mashup practice and research, it is still hard to find high-quality, useful mashups on the Web. While this can be partly ascribed to the low quality of the components used in the mashups or simply to the lack of suitable components, in this paper we argue that this is partly also due to the lack of suitable quality models for mashups themselves, helping developers to focus on the key aspects that affect mashup quality. Although apparently easy, we show that – if taken seriously – mashup development can be non-trivial and that it deserves an investigation that specializes current web quality assessment techniques, which are not able to cater for the specifics of mashups. In fact, we believe a mashup-specific quality model is needed.


Quality Dimension Quality Model Service Composition Street View Flesch Reading Ease 
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.


  1. 1.
    Nestler, T.: Towards a mashup-driven end-user programming of soa-based applications. In: iiWAS, pp. 551–554. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cappiello, C., Daniel, F., Matera, M.: A quality model for mashup components. In: Gaedke, M., Grossniklaus, M., Díaz, O. (eds.) ICWE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5648, pp. 236–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ivory, M.Y., Megraw, R.: Evolution of web site design patterns. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 23, 463–497 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rio, A., e Abreu, F.B.: Websites quality: Does it depend on the application domain? In: Proc. of QUATIC, pp. 493–498. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olsina, L., Rossi, G.: Measuring web application quality with webqem. IEEE Multimedia 9, 20–29 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mavromoustakos, S., Andreou, A.S.: WAQE: a web application quality evaluation model. Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. 3, 96–120 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olsina, L., Sassano, R., Mich, L.: Specifying quality requirements for the web 2.0 applications. In: Proc. of IWWOST 2008, pp. 50–56 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knap, T.T., Mlýnková, I.: Quality assessment social networks: A novel approach for assessing the quality of information on the web. In: Proc. of QDB, pp. 1–10. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varlamis, I.: Quality of content in web 2.0 applications. In: Setchi, R., Jordanov, I., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2010. LNCS, vol. 6278, pp. 33–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brooks, C.H., Montanez, N.: Improved Annotation of the Blogosphere via Autotagging. In: Proc. of WWW, pp. 625–632. ACM Press, Edinburgh (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heymann, P., Koutrika, G., Garcia-Molina, H.: Can Social Bookmarking Improve Web Search? In: Proc. of the WSDM, pp. 195–206. ACM Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kan, S.H.: Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 9126-1 Software Engineering. Product Quality - Part 1: Quality model (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calero, C., Ruiz, J., Piattini, M.: Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Information Review 29, 227–248 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olsina, L., Covella, G., Rossi, G.: Web quality. In: Mendes, E., Mosley, N. (eds.) Web Engineering: Theory and Practice of Metrics and Measurement for Web Development, pp. 109–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abramowicz, W., Hofman, R., Suryn, W., Zyskowski, D.: Square based web services quality model. Information Systems Journal I, 1–9 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, H., Zhao, Z., Sivasothy, S., Huang, C., Crespi, N.: Quality-assured and sociality-enriched multimedia mobile mashup. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw., 11:1–11:13 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cappiello, C., Daniel, F., Matera, M., Pautasso, C.: Information quality in mashups. IEEE Internet Computing 14, 14–22 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen, J.: The usability engineering life cycle. Computer 25, 12–22 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berger, V.W., Zhang, J.: Simple Random Sampling. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aladwani, A.M., Palvia, P.C.: Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Inf. Manage. 39, 467–476 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D., Beale, R.: Human Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Pearson, Harlow (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Daniel, F., Soi, S., Tranquillini, S., Casati, F., Heng, C., Yan, L.: From people to services to ui: Distributed orchestration of user interfaces. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 310–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ceri, S., Matera, M., Rizzo, F., Demaldé, V.: Designing data-intensive web applications for content accessibility using web marts. Commun. ACM 50, 55–61 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Consortium, W.: Wai guidelines and techniques. Technical report (2007),
  27. 27.
    Measuring The Value Of Information: An Asset Valuation Approach. In: Proc. of ECIS 1999 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cinzia Cappiello
    • 1
  • Florian Daniel
    • 2
  • Agnes Koschmider
    • 3
  • Maristella Matera
    • 1
  • Matteo Picozzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dept. of Information Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of TrentoPovo (TN)Italy
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations