Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gashi I.; Popov P. (2007)
Languages: English
Types: Article,Unknown
Subjects: QA76
Assessment of software COTS components is an essential part of component-based software development. Sub-optimal selection of components may lead to solutions with low quality. The assessment is based on incomplete knowledge about the COTS components themselves and other aspects, which may affect the choice such as the vendor's credentials, etc. We argue in favor of assessment methods in which uncertainty is explicitly represented (`uncertainty explicit' methods) using probability distributions. We have adapted a model (developed elsewhere by Littlewood, B. et al. (2000)) for assessment of a pair of COTS components to take account of the fault (bug) logs that might be available for the COTS components being assessed. We also provide empirical data from a study we have conducted with off-the-shelf database servers, which illustrate the use of the method.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Ncube, C. and N. Maiden. PORE:Procurement Oriented Requirements Engineering Method for the ComponentBased Systems Engineering Development Paradigm. in International Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering. 1999.
    • 2. Kontio, J., et al. A COTS Selection Method and Experiences of Its Use. in Twentieth Annual Software Engineering Workshop,NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. 1995. Greenbelt, Maryland.
    • 3. Jeanrenaud, J. and P. Romanazzi. Software Product Evaluation: A Methodological Approach. in Software Quality Management II: Building Software into Quality. 1994 p. 55-69.
    • 4. Tran, V. and D.-B. Liu. A Risk Mitigating Model for the Development of Reliable and Maintainable Large-Scale Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Integrated Software Systems. in Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS). 1997 p. 361-367.
    • 5. Ochs, M., et al. A Method for Efficient Measurementbased COTS Assessment and Selection -Method Description and Evaluation Results. in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Software Metrics. 2001. London, England: IEEE Computer Society p. 285- 294.
    • 6. Alves, C. and J. Castro. CRE: A Systematic Method for COTS Components Selection. in XV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES). 2001. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
    • 7. Phillips, B.C. and S.M. Polen, Add Decision Analysis to Your COTS Selection Process. 2002, http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2002/04/phillips.htm l.
    • 8. Boehm, B., et al. Composable Process Elements for Developing COTS-Based Applications. in Proceedings 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. ISESE'2003. 2003: ACM-IEEE p. 8-17.
    • 9. Dean, J., An Evaluation Method for COTS Software Products. 2000, http://www.stc-online.org/cdrom/cdrom2000/webpages/johndean/paper.pdf.
    • 10. Kunda, D. and L. Brooks. Applying Social-Technical Approach for COTS Selection. in Proceedings of the 4th UKAIS Conference. 1999. University of York, England.
    • 11. Gregor, S., J. Hutson, and C. Oresky. Storyboard Process to Assist in Requirements Verification and Adaptation to Capabilities Inherent in COTS. in ICCBSS 2002. 2002. Florida, USA: Springer-Verlag p. 132-141.
    • 12. Burgués, X., et al. Combined Selection of COTS Components. in ICCBSS 2002. 2002. Florida, USA: Springer-Verlag p. 54-64.
    • 13. Comella-Dorda, S., et al. A Process for COTS Software Product Evaluation. in ICCBSS 2002. 2002. Florida, USA: Springer-Verlag p. 86-92.
    • 14. Ruhe, G. Intelligent Support for Selection of COTS Products. in Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems. 2003: Springer p. 34-45.
    • 15. Littlewood, B. and L. Strigini, Validation of Ultra-High Dependability for Software-based Systems. Communications of the ACM, 1993. 36(11): p. 69-80.
    • 16. Littlewood, B., Popov, P. and Strigini, L., Modelling software design diversity - a review. ACM Computing Surveys, 2001. 33(2): p. 177 - 208.
    • 17. Littlewood, B., P. Popov, and L. Strigini. Assessment of the Reliability of Fault-Tolerant Software: a Bayesian Approach. in Proc. 19th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, SAFECOMP'2000. 2000. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Springer p. 294-308.
    • 18. Lewis, P., et al., Lessons Learned in Developing Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Intensive Software Systems. 2000, Software Engineering Resource Center.
    • 19. Dean, J. and M. Vidger. COTS Software Evaluation Techniques. in Proceedings of The NATO Information Systems Technology. Symposium on Commercial Off-theshelf Products in Defence Applications. 2000. Brussels, Belgium.
    • 20. Wright, D. and K.-Y. Cai, Representing Uncertainty for Safety Critical Systems, PDCS2 Tech. Rep. 135. Center for Software Reliability, City University, London,. 1994.
    • 21. Littlewood, B. and D. Wright, Some conservative stopping rules for the operational testing of safetycritical software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1997. 23(11): p. 673-683.
    • 22. Jeng, B. and E.J. Weyuker, Analyzing partition testing strategies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1991. 17(7): p. 703-711.
    • 23. Hamlet, D. and R. Taylor, Partition testing does not inspire confidence. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1990. 16(12): p. 1402-1411.
    • 24. Musa, J.D., Operational Profiles in Software-Reliability Engineering. IEEE Software, 1993. March: p. 14-32.
    • 25. Gashi, I., Popov, P., Stankovic, V., Uncertainty Concious Assessment of Off-The-Shelf Software. 2006, http://www.csr.city.ac.uk/people/ilir.gashi/COTS/.
    • 26. Gashi, I., Popov, P., Strigini, L. Fault diversity among off-the-shelf SQL database servers. in DSN'04 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. 2004. Florence, Italy: IEEE Computer Society Press p. 389-398.
    • 27. ObjectWeb, C-JDBC. 2006 http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org/.
    • 28. Gray, J. Why do computers stop and what can be done about it? in 6th International Conference on Reliability and Distributed Databases. 1987.
    • 29. Chandra, S. and P.M. Chen. Whither Generic Recovery from Application Faults? A Fault Study using OpenSource Software. in DSN 2000, International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. 2000. NY, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press p. 97-106.
    • 30. Littlewood, B. and D.R. Miller, Conceptual Modelling of Coincident Failures in Multi-Version Software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1989. SE-15(12): p. 1596-1614.
    • 31. Eckhardt, D.E. and L.D. Lee, A theoretical basis for the analysis of multiversion software subject to coincident errors. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1985. SE-11(12): p. 1511-1517.
    • 32. Knight, J.C. and N.G. Leveson, An Experimental Evaluation of the Assumption of Independence in MultiVersion Programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1986. SE-12(1): p. 96-109.
    • 33. Eckhardt, D.E., et al., An experimental evaluation of software redundancy as a strategy for improving reliability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1991. 17(7): p. 692-702.
    • 34. Bertoa, M.F. and A. Vallecillo. Quality Attributes for COTS Components in Proc. of the 6th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in ObjectOriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE 2002), 2002, Málaga, Spain p. 54-66.
    • 35. Ncube, C. and N. Maiden, Acquiring COTS Software Selection Requirements, IEEE Software, 1998, 15(2), p. 46-56.
    • 36. Anderson, T. and P.A. Lee, Fault Tolerance: Principles and Practice (Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerant Systems, Vol 3). 2nd Revised ed. 1990: Springer Verlag.
    • targeted operational environment. Let us denote the profile of the targeted environment as { P(S1),..., P(SM ) }, and assume that these are known r1!r2!r3!(N − r1 − r2 − r3)!
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Funded by projects

  • EC | AMBER

Cite this article