Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.22156/CS4SMB.2017.7.5.111

A Study on the Complexity Measurement of Architecture Assets  

Choi, Han-Yong (Division of IT Convergence Engineering, Shinhan University)
Publication Information
Journal of Convergence for Information Technology / v.7, no.5, 2017 , pp. 111-116 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a method to measure the complexity of assets when a software component is constructed as a basic asset, a standardized design model is acquired, and a reusable extended asset is designed based on the standardized design model. However, each asset of our proposed asset management system consists of composite assets that combine assets of two domains. So this method can not make accurate measurements. Therefore, the complexity of the overall asset can be measured by reflecting the property value of the basic asset stored under the architecture. In conclusion, it is possible to measure the composite-complexity of a composed asset that is inversely proportional to cohesion and proportional to the cumulative sum of the associated values of each asset in the asset-related design.
Keywords
Asset; Reuse; Complexity; Architecture; Component;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 H. Choi & S. Sim. (2015). A Study on Software Development method based on DMI. International Conference for Small & Medium Business (pp. 359-360). Seoul : ICSMB.
2 F. B. Bryant & A. Satorra. (2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 372-398. DOI : 10.1080/10705511.2012.687671   DOI
3 H. Choi & S. Sim. (2017). A Study on the Optimization of Architecture Assets in DMI. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 143-149.
4 H. Krahn, B. Rumpe & S. Volkel. (2010). MontiCore: a framework for compositional development of domain specific languages. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 12(5), 353-372. DOI : 10.1007/s10009-010-0142-1   DOI
5 R. S. Pressman. (2005). Software engineering: a practitioner's approach. London : Palgrave Macmillan.
6 H. Y. Choi. (2016). MetaData Structure Design of Architecture Asset in DMI. Journal of IT Convergence Society for SMB, 6(4), 151-156. DOI : 10.22156/cs4smb.2016.6.4.151   DOI
7 OMG. (2017). Reusable Asset Specification OMG Available Specification Version 2.2. OMG. http://www.omg.org.
8 K. Pohl, G. Bockle & F. J. van Der Linden. (2005). Software product line engineering: foundations, principles and techniques. Berlin : Springer Science & Business Media.
9 S. Y. Min, S. H. Park & N. H. Lee. (2011). SW Quality of Convergence Product: Char acter istics, Improvement Str ategies and Alternatives. Journal of IT Convergence Society for SMB, 1(1), 19-28.
10 N. I. Altintas, S. Cetin, A. H. Dogru & H. Oguztuzun. (2012). Modeling product line software assets using domain-specific kits. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 38(6), 1376-1402. DOI : 10.1109/tse.2011.109   DOI
11 S. Moser & V. B. Misic. (1997). Measuring class coupling and cohesion: a formal metamodel approach. In Software Engineering Conference (pp. 31-40). USA : IEEE. DOI : 10.1109/apsec.1997.640159   DOI
12 S. Bernardi, J. Merseguer & D. C. Petriu. (2012). Dependability modeling and analysis of software systems specified with UML. ACM Computing Surveys, 45(1), 2. DOI : 10.1145/2379776.2379778   DOI
13 A. B. Younes, Y. B. Hlaoui & L. J. B. Ayed. (2014). A meta-model transformation from uml activity diagrams to event-b models. 2014 IEEE 38th International (pp. 740-745). IEEE. USA : IEEE. DOI : 10.1109/compsacw.2014.119   DOI