Advertisement

Quality Evaluation of Semantic Web Applications

  • Sandeep Kumar
  • Niyati Baliyan
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Computer Science book series (BRIEFSCOMPUTER)

Abstract

As discussed in Chap.  1, Semantic Web applications are radically changing the software industry through their ability to share and use data from heterogeneous sources. This in turn enables the discovery of meaningful relationships among chunks of data. Having understood the significance of such applications in giving insights into knowledge toward solving real-world problems, one must measure and improve their quality. This chapter carries forward the idea of assessing ontologies from Chap.  2 and underlines the need for assessing in totality, a Semantic Web application supported by ontology. This may benefit customer by providing his/her the quality ranking of different Semantic Web applications which provide similar functionality. Moreover, the developer may use the qualitative assessment result toward monitoring and improvising his Semantic Web application. As per our knowledge, there exists no framework which allows customers to rank Semantic Web applications based on their quality. It is expected of such framework to preserve the quality attributes of Semantic Web-based applications, which overlap with conventional software or Web applications and in addition incorporate specific quality attributes of Semantic Web-based applications. This chapter presents in detail a Semantic Web application quality evaluation framework (referred to as SWAQ) which employs Analytic Hierarchy Process for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making and Fuzzy Inference System for finding the quality. The implementation of SWAQ has been described using a case study, and comparative study of results has been done. Moreover, SWAQ’s foundations have been validated with the help of standard benchmarks of IEEE 1061 and Kitchenham.

Keywords

Semantic Web application Analytic Hierarchy Process Fuzzy Inference System Quality 

References

  1. Abrahao, S., Oscar, P.: Measuring the functional size of web applications. Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. 1(1), 5–16 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azuma, M.: SQuaRE: the next generation of the ISO/IEC 9126 and 14598 international standards series on software product quality. In: Proceedings of the European Software Control and Metrics Conference, pp. 337–346 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. Baliyan, N., Kumar, S.: Adaptation of software engineering to semantic web based system development. In: 2013 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Communication, Control, Signal Processing & Computing Applications (C2SPCA), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2013a, October)Google Scholar
  4. Baliyan, N., Kumar, S.; Quality assessment of software as a service on cloud using fuzzy logic. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing in Emerging Markets (CCEM), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2013b, October)Google Scholar
  5. Baliyan, N., Kumar, S.: Software process and quality evaluation for semantic web applications. IETE Tech. Rev. 31(6), 452–462 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. Baliyan, N., Kumar, S.: SWAQ: A semantic web application quality evaluation framework. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. [accepted for publication] (2018)Google Scholar
  7. Barksdale Jr., J.B.: Sets and Randolph Diagrams. Available online at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED045458.pdf. Last accessed Jan 2018 (October 1970)
  8. Bernstein, A.: Software Engineering and the Semantic Web: A Match made in Heaven or in Hell? Software Language Engineering, pp. 203–205. Springer (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calero, C., Ruiz, J., Piattini, M.: Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Inf. Rev. 29(3), 227–248 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, D., Ash, D., Lowther, B., Oman, P.: Using metrics to evaluate software system maintainability. IEEE Comput. 27(8), 44–49 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garg, S.K., Versteeg, S., Buyya, R.: A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. Elsevier 29(4), 1012–1023 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. HLWIKI.: Semantic Search: HLWIKI International. http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Semantic_search. Last modified 13 Aug 2015
  13. IEEE, IEEE STD 1061-1998.: IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=749159 (1998)
  14. Jang, R., Gulley, N.: Fuzzy Logic Toolbox for MATLAB: User’s Guide. The Math Works Inc., USA (1995)Google Scholar
  15. Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software quality: the elusive target [special issues section]. IEEE Softw. 13(1), 12–21 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koch,R.: The 80/20 Principle: Living the 80/20 Way. Nicholas Brealey Publication (2004)Google Scholar
  17. Marsico, M., Levialdi, S.: Evaluating web sites: exploiting user’s expectations. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 60(3), 381–416 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mathworks.: Comparison of Sugeno and Mamdani Systems. http://www.mathworks.in/help/fuzzy/comparison-of-sugeno-and-mamdani-systems.html. Accessed 12 Aug 2014
  19. Matlab.: Available online at https://www.mathworks.com/products/fuzzy-logic.html. Last accessed Jan 2017
  20. Mendes, P.N., Mühleisen, H., Bizer, C.: Sieve: linked data quality assessment and fusion. In: Proceedings of the Joint EDBT/ICDT Workshops, pp. 116–123 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. Mich, L., Franch, M., Inverardi, P.N.: Choosing the “Rightweight” model for web site quality evaluation. In: Proceedings of Web Engineering, pp. 334–337. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  22. Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th International ed., p. 388. McGraw-Hill (2001)Google Scholar
  23. Pusnik, M., Šumak, B., Heričko, M.: Redefining software quality metrics to XML schema needs. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Software Quality Analysis, Monitoring, Improvement and Applications, p. 87 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. Radulovic, F., Castro, R.G.: Towards a Quality Model for Semantic Technologies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6786, pp. 244–256. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, vol. 6. RWS Publications (2000)Google Scholar
  26. Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1(1), 83–98 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. Signore, O.: A comprehensive model for web sites quality. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 7th International Symposium on Web Site Evolution, pp. 30–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. Solingen, R.V., Berghout, E.: The Goal/Question/Metric Method: A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development, vol. 7. McGraw Hill (1999)Google Scholar
  29. W3C.: W3C Semantic Web Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.w3.org/RDF/FAQ. Accessed 1 Sept 2014
  30. Zaveri, A., Rula, A., Maurino, A.: Quality assessment methodologies for linked open data. Seman Web J. 1–5 (2013)Google Scholar
  31. Zeleny, M.: Multiple Criteria Decision Making (Cochrane, J.L. (ed.)), vol. 25. McGraw-Hill (1982)Google Scholar
  32. Zhou, Z.: Evaluating websites using a practical quality model. M. Phil. thesis, De Montfort Univ., Leicester (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyIndira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for WomenNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations