Upload
davide-taibi
View
1.376
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Open BQROpen BQRa framework for the assessment of Open Source Software
Davide Taibi - Luigi Lavazza - Sandro MorascaUniversity of Insubria
Goals
O.S.S. Comparison
Ideology
Opinion
“religion” issue
Assessment Errors
Big Projects+
• Experience: inaccurate
• Existing methods: very recent
• No methods yet consider the following:– Internal qualities (eg. code size, complexity)– External qualities (eg. fault proneness)– Support availability in the future
Current situation
Goals
COMPARISON MODEL• simple
• “formal”
Fast qualification and selection
FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS- Functional coverage
- Number of bugs & time needed to solve- Availability of future support
- Other aspects
Preliminary analysis
O.S. Communities Contacts• GUFPI-ISMA Software Metrics • Java Open Business• International Function Point User Group (IFPUG)• CMMi Process Improvement Community
Software Metrics• Function Points• Cosmic FFP• COCOMO
Existing OSS comparison methods • Open Source Maturity Model • Open Business Readiness Ratings • Qualification and Selection of O.S. Software
Forum
Workshop
Surveys
Open BQR
OSMMOpen Source Maturity Model
Open BRROpen Business Readiness Rating
+ QSOSQualification and Selection of O.S. Software
+Open BQR
Open Business Quality Rating
OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE COMPARISON
1. Selection
2. Parameter evaluation
3. Classification
v
vv
x
x
xx
Open BQR
1. Quick Assessment Filter
2. Data Collection & Processing
3. Data Translation
Open BQR – method
• License • Compliance with standards• Implementation language • Internationalization support • User’s manual availability • Supervised by analysts
• Specification analysis • Functional coverage assessment
• Indicator Analysis • Target Usage parameters
Open BQR – method
1.Quick Assessment Filter
• Specification analysis • Functional coverage assessment
• Indicator Analysis • Target Usage parameters
• Bug database analysis
• Closed bugs/ bug number• Bug time correction• Donations/bug number
Open BQR – method
1.Quick Assessment Filter
• Specification analysis • Functional coverage assessment
• Indicator Analysis • Target Usage parameters
• Bug database analysis • Internal qualities analysis
• Complexity (Mc Cabe)• Reuse• Dependencies
Open BQR – method
1.Quick Assessment Filter
• Specification analysis • Functional coverage assessment
• Indicator Analysis • Target Usage parameters
• Bug database analysis • Internal qualities analysis • Community activity analysis
• Number of release • Number of company supporting the product • Average number of developers per company • Independent developers
Open BQR – method
1.Quick Assessment Filter
1.Quick Assessment Filter
2.Data Collection & Processing
3.Data TranslationTarget usage parameters
External qualitiesFunctionality
Cost
Support
Open BQR – method
• Specification analysis • Rank of indicators
• Weight normalization • Indicator assessment
• Final score calculation• Result plotting Internal qualities
Test
Drupal
Mambo
WebGUI
CMS ERP
Compiere
Open BQR – CMS
Custom requirements
Personal web site:
• User-defined layout• Creation of new public or hidden page by the user• Image gallery• Donwloads • Upload of files and images via browser • Administration interface, better if in the user’s language
Open BQR – CMS
INITIAL CHOICE
• MAMBO
• DRUPAL
• WEB GUI
FUNCTIONAL COVERAGE CHECK
Customer indicator weight1. User-defined layout 10/10
2. CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) pages 10/10
3. Image gallery 7/10
4. CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) files and download page 5/10
5. Italian interface supported 5/10
Open BQR – CMS
Parameter Assessment - Mambo
Indicator Weight Normalized weight Score Final
Score
Target usage assessment
License 10 7,35 10 7,35%
Respect of standards 5 3,68 8 2,94%
Implementation language 8 5,88 20 11,76%
Internationalization support 5 3,68 8 2,94%Technical documentation availability 10 7,35 7 5,15%
Supervised by analysts 2 1,47 0 0,00%
Open BQR – CMS
Parameter Assessment - Mambo
Indicator Weight Normalized weight Score Final
Score
Target usage assessment
License 10 7,35 10 7,35%
Respect of standards 5 3,68 8 2,94%
Implementation language 8 5,88 20 11,76%
Internationalization support 5 3,68 8 2,94%Technical documentation availability 10 7,35 7 5,15%
Supervised by analysts 2 1,47 0 0,00%
Open BQR – CMS
Parameter Assessment - Mambo
Indicator Weight Normalized weight Score Final
Score
Target usage assessment
License 10 7,35 10 7,35%
Respect of standards 5 3,68 8 2,94%
Implementation language 8 5,88 20 11,76%
Internationalization support 5 3,68 8 2,94%Technical documentation availability 10 7,35 7 5,15%
Supervised by analysts 2 1,47 0 0,00%
Open BQR – CMS
Parameter Assessment - Mambo
Indicator Weight Normalized weight Score Final
Score
Target usage assessment
License 10 7,35 10 7,35%
Respect of standards 5 3,68 8 2,94%
Implementation language 8 5,88 20 11,76%
Internationalization support 5 3,68 8 2,94%Technical documentation availability 10 7,35 7 5,15%
Supervised by analysts 2 1,47 0 0,00%
Open BQR – CMS
Functionality
Support availabilityExternal qualities
Evaluation
Target usage indicators
Tool
Conclusions & future work
• Apply Open BQR to CMS projects
• Refine/extend the set of parameters that are relevant for the evaluation
• Reduce subjectivity as much as possible
• Disseminate the method among the O.S. users and developers
THANKS.
QUESTIONS?
Open BQR
Q & A