Metrics Measuring a Quality based on Object - Oriented Design Characteristics


The Transactions of the Korea Information Processing Society (1994 ~ 2000), Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 372-383, Feb. 2000
10.3745/KIPSTE.2000.7.2.372,   PDF Download:

Abstract

There are many researches about metrics to measure a quality of Object-Oriented(OO) software. However, most of them have only discussed a concept or properties of metrics, and have not shown the detailed procedure for measuring them. They also define a measurement indicator as a threshold, but it has been influenced on a project size or application domains. In this paper, we propose metrics based on characteristics of OO design such as size, complexity, coupling and cohesion, and use a proportion to an average as the measurement indicator. It is easy to classify classes which have a result above the average, and to predict classes which reduced the quality of OO design. They will be modified to hold the average. Proposed metrics are analytically evaluated by Weyuker's nine properties. They are satisfied with seven properties except two properties do not apply to OO metrics. Also, we design a quality assessment system, ASSOD(ASsessment System of Object oriented Design), to measure the quality of the OO design independent of the platform.


Statistics
Show / Hide Statistics

Statistics (Cumulative Counts from September 1st, 2017)
Multiple requests among the same browser session are counted as one view.
If you mouse over a chart, the values of data points will be shown.


Cite this article
[IEEE Style]
Y. K. Kim and J. N. Park, "Metrics Measuring a Quality based on Object - Oriented Design Characteristics," The Transactions of the Korea Information Processing Society (1994 ~ 2000), vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 372-383, 2000. DOI: 10.3745/KIPSTE.2000.7.2.372.

[ACM Style]
Yu Kyong Kim and Jai Nyun Park. 2000. Metrics Measuring a Quality based on Object - Oriented Design Characteristics. The Transactions of the Korea Information Processing Society (1994 ~ 2000), 7, 2, (2000), 372-383. DOI: 10.3745/KIPSTE.2000.7.2.372.