Erki Eessaar



Each software entity should have as high quality as possible in the context of limited resources. A software quality measure is a kind of software entity. Existing studies about the evaluation of software measures do not pay enough attention to the quality of specifications of measures. Semiotics has been used as a basis in order to evaluate the quality of different types of software entities. In this paper, we propose a multidimensional, semiotic quality framework of software quality measures. We apply this framework in order to evaluate the syntactic and semantic quality of two sets of database design measures. The evaluation shows that these measures have some quality problems.


  1. Baroni, A.L, Calero, C., Piattini, M., & Abreu, F.B., 2005. A Formal Definition for Object-Relational Database Metrics. In 7th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems.
  2. Belle, J. P., 2006. A Framework for the Evaluation of Business Models and its Empirical Validation. Electronic journal of information systems evaluation, Vol 9, Issue 1, 31-44.
  3. Bernstein, A. P., 2003. Applying Model Management to Classical Meta Data Problems. In Conf. on Innovative Database Research (CIDR).
  4. Blaha, M., 1997. Dimensions of Database Reverse Engineering. In Fourth Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, 176-183.
  5. Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V.C., Sugumaran, V. & Ahluwalia, P., 2005. A Semiotic Metrics Suite for Assessing the Quality of Ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 55, No. 1, 84-102
  6. Choinzon, M.,& Ueda, Y., 2006. Design Defects in Object Oriented Designs Using Design Metrics. In 7th Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering. IOS Press, 61-72.
  7. Date, C. J. & Darwen, H., 2006. Databases, Types and the Relational Model, Addison Wesley. USA, 3rd edn.
  8. DMTF Common Information Model Standards, 2006. CIM Schema Ver. 2.16. Database specification.
  9. DMTF Common Information Model Standards, 2006. CIM Schema Ver. 2.15. Metrics schema.
  10. García, F., Bertoa, M.F., Calero, C., Vallecillo, A., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., & Genero, M., 2006. Towards a Consistent Terminology for Software Measurement. Information & Software Technology, Vol. 48, 631- 644.
  11. Greenfield, J., Short, K., Cook, S., & Kent, S., 2004. Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools, Wiley Publishing, Inc. Indianapolis.
  12. IEEE Standards Dept., 1998. IEEE Std. 1061-1998, Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology.
  13. Jacquet, J. & Abran, A., 1998. Metrics Validation Proposals: A Structured Analysis. In Proceedings of Eighth International Workshop of Software Measurement.
  14. Kaner, C., & Bond, P., 2004. Software Engineering Metrics: What Do They Measure and How Do We Know? In 10th International Software Metrics Symposium.
  15. Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S. & Fenton, N., 1995. Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 21, Issue 12, pp 929-944.
  16. Krogstie, J., 2001. A Semiotic Approach to Quality in Requirements Specifications. In IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics, eds. Stamper et al., Montreal, Canada, 231-249.
  17. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., & Jorgensen, H., 2006. Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, 91-102.
  18. Larman, C., 2002. Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and the Unified Process, Prentice Hall. USA, 2nd edn.
  19. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., & Solvberg, A., 1994. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, Mar. 1994, Vol. 11, Issue 2, 42-49.
  20. Maiden, N., & Sutcliffe, A., 1992. Exploiting reusable specifications through analogy. Communications of ACM, Vol. 35, No. 4, 55-64.
  21. McQuillan, J. A. & Power, J. F., 2006. Towards re-usable measure definitions at the meta-level. In PhD Workshop of the 20th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming.
  22. Melton, J., ISO/IEC 9075-2:2003 (E) Information technology - Database languages - SQL - Part 2: Foundation (SQL/Foundation). August, 2003.
  23. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-webster's online dictionary, viewed 25 November, 2007, <>.
  24. OMG Common Warehouse Metamodel Specification formal/03-03-02. March 2003. Version 1.1.
  25. Opdahl, A.L., & Henderson-Sellers, B., 2002. Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge-WandWeber Model. Software and Systems Modeling, Vol 1, No. 1, 43 - 67.
  26. Piattini, M., Calero, C., & Genero, M., 2001a. Table Oriented Metrics for Relational Databases. Software Quality Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 79-97.
  27. Piattini, M., Calero, C., Sahraoui, H., & Lounis, H., 2001b. Object-Relational Database Metrics. L'Object, vol. March 2001.
  28. Schneidewind, N.F., 1992. Methodology for Validating Software Metrics. IEEE Transactions Software Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 5 (May 1992), 410-422.
  29. Wismüller, R., Bubak, M., Funika, W., Arodz, T., & Kurdziel, M., 2004. Support for User-Defined Metrics in the Online Performance Analysis Tool G-PM. In AxGrids 2004, LNCS Vol. 3165, 159-168.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Eessaar E. (2008). TOWARDS A SEMIOTIC QUALITY FRAMEWORK OF SOFTWARE MEASURES . In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8111-36-4, pages 41-48. DOI: 10.5220/0001703400410048

in Bibtex Style

author={Erki Eessaar},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,
SN - 978-989-8111-36-4
AU - Eessaar E.
PY - 2008
SP - 41
EP - 48
DO - 10.5220/0001703400410048