The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is becoming a de-facto standard for exchanging information among the web applications. Efficient implementation of web application needs to be efficient implementation of XML and XML schema document. The quality of XML document has great impact on the design quality of its schema document. Therefore, the design of XML schema document plays an important role in web engineering process and needs to have many schema qualities: functionality, extensibility, reusability, understandability, maintainability and so on. Three schema metrics: Reusable Quality metric (RQ), Extensible Quality metric (EQ) and Understandable Quality metric (UQ) are proposed to measure the Reusable, Extensible and Understandable of XML schema documents in web engineering process respectively. The base attributes are selected according to XML Quality Assurance Design Guidelines. These metrics are formulated based on Binary Entropy Function and Rank Order Centroid method. To check the validity of the proposed metrics empirically and analytically, the self-organizing feature map (SOM) and Weyuker’s 9 properties are used.
T. Thaw and M. Khin, "Measuring Qualities of XML Schema Documents," Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 9, 2013, pp. 458-469. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2013.69056.
[1] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, “Elements of Information Theory,” 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hohoken, New Jersey and Published by Simultaneously in, 2006. [2] F. Lourenco, V. Lobo and F. Bacao, “Binary Based Similarity Measures for Categorical Data and Their Applications in Self-Organizing Maps,” JOCLAD 2004-XI Jornadas de Classificacao e Anlise de Dados, Lisbon, 1-3 April 2004, pp. 1-8. [3] E. J. Weyuker, “Evaluation Software Complexity Measures,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 9, 1988, pp. 1357-1365. doi:10.1109/32.6178 [4] Y. Chen and R. McFadyen, “A DTD Complexity Metric,” Proceedings of the 21st IASTED International Conference, Applied Informatics, Innsbruck, 10-13 February 2001, Austria, pp. 1045-1052. [5] S. Misra and B. Dilek, “Document Type Definition (DTD) Metrics,” Romanian Journal of Information, Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2011, pp. 31-50. [6] M. Klettke, L. Schneider and A. Heuer, “Metrics for XML Document Collections,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2490, 2002, pp. 15-28. [7] A. McDowell, C. Schmidt and K. Bun Yue, “Analysis and Metrics of XML Schema,” Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice, 2004, pp. 538-544. [8] D. Basci and S. Misra, “Measuring and Evaluating a Design Complexity Metric for XML Schema Documents,” Journal of Information Science and Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1405-1425. [9] D. Basci and S. Misra, “Entropy as a Measure of Quality of XML Schema Document,” International Arab Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2010, pp. 75-83. [10] D. Basci and S. Misra, “Complexity Metric for XML Schema Documents,” Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on SOA and Web Practices, 2007, pp. 1-14. [11] J. Visser, “Structure Metrics for XML Schema,” Proceedings of XATA, Portugal, 2006, pp. 1-12. [12] B. Sumak, M. Hericko and M. Pusnik, “Towards a Framework for Quality XML Schema Evaluation,” Proceedings of the ITI 2007 29th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, Cavtat, 25-28 June 2007, pp. 783-788. [13] D. Obasanjo, Microsoft Corporation, “W3C XML Schema Design Patterns: Avoiding Complexity,” Applies to: W3C XML Schema, 2003. http://www.xml.com [14] H. S. Thompson, D. Beech, M. Maloney and N. Mendelsohn, “XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition,” W3C Recommendation, 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ [15] D. Stephenson, “XML Schema Best Practice,” HewlettPackard Development Company, Palo Alto, 2004. [16] “PESC Guidelines for XML Architecture and Data Modeling,” a Publication of the Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council (PESC), Version 3.0, 2005. [17] T. Z. Thaw, “Measuring and Evaluation of Reusable Quality and Extensible Quality for XML Schema Documents,” 2011 IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development, Cyberjaya, 19-20 December 2011, pp. 473-478. [18] D. Lee and W. W. Chu, “Comparative Analysis of Six XML Schema Languages,” ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2000, pp. 76-87. doi:10.1145/362084.362140