The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding the requirements for developing open source software systems
Abstract
This study presents an initial set of findings from an empirical study of social processes, technical system configurations, organisational contexts and interrelationships that give rise to open software. The focus is directed at understanding the requirements for open software development efforts, and how the development of these requirements differs from those traditional to software engineering and requirements engineering. Four open software development communities are described, examined and compared to help discover what these differences may be. Eight kinds of software informalisms are found to play a critical role in the elicitation, analysis, specification, validation and management of requirements for developing open software systems. Subsequently, understanding the roles these software informalisms take in a new formulation of the requirements development process for open source software is the focus of this study. This focus enables the consideration of a reformulation of the requirements engineering process and its associated artefacts, or (in)formalisms, to better account for the requirements for developing open source software systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001 · Cited by 6,188
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Cited by
Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development1
von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S., & Wallin, M. W. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703471 · Cited by 698
Storey, M.-A., Zagalsky, A., Filho, F. F., Singer, L., & German, D. M. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2584053 · Cited by 221
The GNOME project: a case study of open source, global software development
German, D. M. (2003) · Software Process: Improvement and Practice · doi:10.1002/spip.189 · Cited by 169
Who Will Stay in the FLOSS Community? Modeling Participant’s Initial Behavior
Zhou, M., & Mockus, A. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2014.2349496 · Cited by 141
Reputation in an open source software community: Antecedents and impacts
Cai, Y., & Zhu, D. (2016) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.08.004 · Cited by 43
Kazman, R., Goldenson, D., Monarch, I., Nichols, W., & Valetto, G. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2015.2465387 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Scacchi, W.
- Venue
- IEE Proceedings - Software
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 149
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24
- ISSN
- 1462-5970 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028561093
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 44.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
