The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Property-based software engineering measurement
Abstract
Little theory exists in the field of software system measurement. Concepts such as complexity, coupling, cohesion or even size are very often subject to interpretation and appear to have inconsistent definitions in the literature. As a consequence, there is little guidance provided to the analyst attempting to define proper measures for specific problems. Many controversies in the literature are simply misunderstandings and stem from the fact that some people talk about different measurement concepts under the same label (complexity is the most common case). There is a need to define unambiguously the most important measurement concepts used in the measurement of software products. One way of doing so is to define precisely what mathematical properties characterize these concepts, regardless of the specific software artifacts to which these concepts are applied. Such a mathematical framework could generate a consensus in the software engineering community and provide a means for better communication among researchers, better guidelines for analysts, and better evaluation methods for commercial static analyzers for practitioners. We propose a mathematical framework which is generic, because it is not specific to any particular software artifact, and rigorous, because it is based on precise mathematical concepts. We use this framework to propose definitions of several important measurement concepts (size, length, complexity, cohesion, coupling). It does not intend to be complete or fully objective; other frameworks could have been proposed and different choices could have been made. However, we believe that the formalisms and properties we introduce are convenient and intuitive. This framework contributes constructively to a firmer theoretical ground of software measurement.
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
Cited by
A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment
Bansiya, J., & Davis, C. G. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.979986 · Cited by 1,020
Exploring the relationships between design measures and software quality in object-oriented systems
Briand, L. C., Wüst, J., Daly, J. W., & Victor Porter, D. (2000) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/s0164-1212(99)00102-8 · Cited by 710
Self-citationManagerial use of metrics for object-oriented software: an exploratory analysis
Chidamber, S. R., Darcy, D. P., & Kemerer, C. F. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.707698 · Cited by 477
Fenton, N. E., & Neil, M. (2000) · Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/336512.336588 · Cited by 317
Using the Conceptual Cohesion of Classes for Fault Prediction in Object-Oriented Systems
Marcus, A., Poshyvanyk, D., & Ferenc, R. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2007.70768 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Briand, L. C., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. R.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 68-86
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2122519137
- Cited by
- 748
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 53.60
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Property-based software engineering measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/32.481535
- The paper
- Briand, L. C., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. R. (1996). Property-based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.481535
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.