Utilizing the Similarity Meaning of Label in Class Cohesion Calculation

Bayu Priyambadha; Tetsuro Katayama; Yoshihiro Kita; Hisaaki Yamaba; Kentaro Aburada; Nanoubu Okazaki

doi:10.2991/jrnal.k.201215.013

<Previous Article In Issue

Download article (PDF)

Next Article In Issue>

Volume 7, Issue 4, March 2021, Pages 270 - 274

Utilizing the Similarity Meaning of Label in Class Cohesion Calculation

Authors

Bayu Priyambadha¹^{, *}, Tetsuro Katayama¹, Yoshihiro Kita², Hisaaki Yamaba¹, Kentaro Aburada¹, Nanoubu Okazaki¹

¹Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Agriculture and Engineering, University of Miyazaki, 1-1 Gakuen-Kibanadai nishi, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan

²Department of Information Security, Faculty of Information Systems, Siebold Campus, University of Nagasaki, 1-1-1 Manabino, Nagayo-cho, Nishi-Sonogi-gun, Nagasaki 851-2195, Japan

^*Corresponding author. Email: bayu@earth.cs.miyazaki-u.ac.jp

Corresponding Author

Bayu Priyambadha

Received 10 November 2019, Accepted 13 November 2020, Available Online 31 December 2020.

DOI: 10.2991/jrnal.k.201215.013 How to use a DOI?
Keywords: Software engineering; software quality; design quality; cohesion metric; D3C2 metric
Abstract: The cohesion is one of the design quality indicators in software engineering. The measurement of the value of cohesion is done by looking at the correlation between attributes and methods that are in a class. In Direct Distance Design Class Cohesion (D₃C₂) metrics, attributes, and methods are assumed to have a good correlation if they have a similar type. But, the similarity of type parameters and attributes do not always indicate that these attributes are managed (correlated) in the method. This study is trying to gain information that can enhance the degree of certainty of a correlation between the methods and attributes. Relatedness between them has been seen from closeness the meaning of the name tag attribute, method, and parameters. The experimental results declared an increase in the value of cohesion produced in line with the similarity of meaning.
Copyright: © 2020 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press B.V.
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

1. INTRODUCTION

Software engineering is a discipline that has a purpose to provide a way or method to build a qualified software system [1]. Each development phase must be carried out in an orderly and synchronous manner with each other. So that one phase and the other is traceable. The previous phase will give effect to the next phase. Maintaining the quality of the software not only focuses on one specific phase, but it should be maintained at every phase so that the resulting qualified software. The design phase is the second phase after requirement analysis is finished. The design phase aims to produce a description of the structure of the software, data models, data structures, interfaces between system components, and the algorithms used [1]. The quality of design affects the final result of the software. There is a mechanism to assess the quality of software design artifact. Metric is one that can be used to quantified the quality. Cohesion is one of the indicators for assessing the quality of a result of design [2–4].

Cohesion is a level of relatedness between elements within a component [2]. The higher value of cohesion means the relatedness between elements is high. The higher the value of cohesion in a component, then the better the design [5,6]. For example, in the development of software with an object-oriented approach, there is a class which is a component, an element that is in the class include the attributes and methods [2]. The high cohesion means the relation between attribute and method, attribute and attribute, and method and method is high. If it is high then the class is full of relations and compact. The high cohesion can increase the maintainability of classes that exist in the system. The changes in one class will not affect the other class. The maintenance of the system can be easily and focus on the problem [6].

The process of calculating the value of the cohesion of a class will be very useful in maintaining the quality of the design [2,3]. The measurement of cohesion at the design phase has a purpose to provide information about the quality of the design as soon as possible. Knowing it can save the cost and effort of developers to perform maintenance.

One metric that can be used to measure the value of cohesion that considers the interrelationships between attributes and methods are the Distance Design-based Direct Class Cohesion and then called D₃C₂ [2]. D₃C₂ metric considering the relatedness between elements by seeing the similarity of parameter type in the method of class and the unique attribute type. A method assumed has high relatedness if the parameter type of method is the same as the attribute type of the class. At the design phase, the source code of the system has not been defined yet. The certainty that an attribute is manipulated by a method is low. This condition raises the thought that similarity parameter types and attribute types do not always indicate that an attribute associated with the method. On the other hand, some attributes are manipulated by a method which does not have the same parameter types as attribute types.

This study tries to explore the information that can enhance the degree of certainty of the relationship between methods and attributes of the class. Based on the theory, the maintainability of software is affected by the naming of a variable (attributes and method) [1]. The naming of a label of attributes and methods in the inner class must be informative. the naming of attributes and methods must describe the purpose of why they must be defined. This research is assumed that the naming of attributes and methods is done informatively. One of the purposes of this research is to find the correlation between attributes and methods not only looked at the similarity of type but also the name. The similarity of names is not only seen from the similarities of syntax but also views of the similarity of meaning (semantics). Then, the experimental results applied to the D₃C₂ metrics to calculate the value of cohesion in a real case. The result using D₃C₂ cohesion metrics with the semantic approach is used to compare with the previous approach.

2. COHESION METRIC

Cohesion metric is a measure of the quality attributes of the object-oriented program and refers to the level where class members are related. Measurement cohesion class to get the value of the quality of software products and as a guide for the restructuring of the bad class design program. Some metrics class cohesion has a purpose as literature, and some of these metrics are used for validation purposes based on mathematical measurement of class cohesion [7].

Direct Attribute Type (DAT) is a matrix used to map the relatedness between method and attribute [2]. DAT is created as the basis for the calculation of the D₃C₂ metric. DAT matrix is prepared by comparing the method’s type and the attribute’s type. The example of the DAT matrix from class ColourSettings (Figure 1) is described in Table 1. Based on the DAT matrix, the following four metrics have to calculate before D₃C₂ will calculate [2].

	ColourEntry	ColourEntry	ColourEntry	ColourEntry	Picture
ColourSettings	0	0	0	0	1
restore	0	0	0	0	0
toString	1	1	1	1	0
toString	0	0	0	0	0

Table 1

DAT matrix using previous research

2.1. Method–Method through Attributes Cohesion

Method–Method Attributes through Cohesion (MMAC) is a metric to calculate an average value of cohesion of all pairs of methods. MMAC is formally written as follows:

MMAC(C)={0,if k=0 or l=0,1,if k=1,∑i=1lxi(xi-1)lk(k-1),otherwise. (1)

where x is the number of the value of 1 in one column (j), k is the number of methods, and l is the number of attributes in the class.

2.2. Attribute–Attribute Cohesion

Attribute–Attribute Cohesion (AAC) is a metric to calculate the average value of cohesion of pair of attributes. AAC is formally written as follows:

ACC(C)={0,if k=0 or l=0,1,if l=1,∑i=lkyi(yi-1)kl(l-1),otherwise. (2)

where y is the number of the value of 1 in one row (i).

2.3. Attribute–Method Cohesion

Attribute–Method Cohesion (AMC) is a metric to calculate an average value of cohesion based on the interaction of attributes and methods. AMC is formally written as follows:

AMC(C)={0, if k=0 or l=0,∑i=1k∑j=1lmijkl,otherwise. (3)

where i is the number of rows in the matrix, j is the number of columns in the matrix, k is the number of methods in the matrix, and k is the number of the attribute in the matrix.

2.4. Distance Design-based Direct Class Cohesion

This process can’t be defined if a class does not have class methods and attributes. D₃C₂ metrics used to calculate the final summation of the result of MMAC, AAC, and AMC. D₃C₂ is formulated as follows:

D3C2(C)={0,if k=0 and l=1,1,if k=1 and l=0,k(k-1)MMAC(C)+l(l-1)ACC(C)+2lkAMC(C)k(k-1)+l(l-1)+2lk,otherwise. (4)

3. SEMANTIC SIMILARITY

Dictionary or repository of words that can be used to assist in the identification of words that mean the same thing has been developed and used in several studies [8,9]. A WordNet is a dictionary that has been prepared based on the relation of synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, and hypernyms, meronyms, troponin, and entailment relationships [10]. Wu and Palmer [11] formulate a way of comparing the meanings of the two words by considering the proximity of the relations in the word’s dictionary.

In a study conducted by Dijkman et al. [12], Dijkman defines a formula for calculating the similarity between the two labels or sentence by considering the similarity of meanings (synonyms). Semantic similarity can be calculated using the following formula:

sim=2.wi.|w1∩w2|+ws.(|s(w1,w2)|+|s(w2,w1)|)|w1|+|w2| (5)

where w₁ and w₂ are the collections of a word from every compared sentence. s(w₁, w₂) or s(w₂, w₁) is the number of words that have a synonym relationship between two sentences. wi and ws are the weight that is defined for a similar word and the word that has semantic similarities (synonym). Dijkman defines the value of wi = 1 and ws = 0.75 [12].

4. METHODOLOGY

Figure 2 shows the flow of the automatic calculation system. The first step in this research is receiving the XML files. Those files are generated from design tools named Visual Paradigm for UML. The calculation of the value of cohesion is performed by using prototype software that is developed using Java language. The results will be stored in storage, which will then be analyzed.

In D₃C₂ metric calculation process, it is necessary first to calculate metrics MMAC, ACC, and AMC. In previous studies, the DAT matrix is formed by giving the value 1 for the pair method and attribute which has the same type. In this study, the DAT matrix is prepared by comparing the method of the semantic similarity of the name of the method and attributes besides considering the similarity of type. If there is no type recognized, then the semantic similarity is considered. The system has to be able to split the words inner both names to make a comparison semantically between words from the label name of method and attribute.

After splitting the name of methods and attributes, then every name label (consist of words after splitting) is comparing semantically using Equation (5) and a threshold of 0.5. WordNet will enrich Equation (5) to calculate the similarity of words. If the score is above the threshold, then it is considered as similar semantically. For an example of the calculation is, there are two label name “getBirthDate” and “BirthDay”. Syntactically, it is different, but if we look at the context meaning it is very close. The implementation of the calculation using Equation (5) to the example of the label is explained as follows. First “getBirthDate” is split to “get”, “Birth” and “Date” (w₁). And, “BirthDate” split into “Birth” and “Date” (w₂). |w₁ ∩ w₂| = 1, because there is a couple of words that exactly similar is “Birth”. (|s(w₁, w₂)| + |s(w₂, w₁)|) is looking at the rest of the words that have synonym similarity from w₁ to w₂ and w₂ to w₁. Between the rest of the words in w₁ to w₂ there is only one couple synonym, the word is “Date” and “Day”. “Date” and “Day” are calculated using WordNet has a score of synonymity of 0.92. So, (|s(w₁, w₂)| + |s(w₂, w₁)|) = 1, represent the number of synonym couple between w₁ and w₂. If all of this is put together using Equation (5) then can be described as follow (wi = 1 and ws = 0.75).

sim=2.1.1+0.75.(1)5=0.55 (6)

Because the result of the calculation is 0.55 (above threshold 0.5), then “getBirthDate” and “BirthDay” are considered semantically similar. And, this result will be represented to the purposed DAT matrix by giving a value of 1 into the purposed DAT matrix. The example of the semantic DAT matrix is described in Table 2. After the DAT matrix is completed, then the calculation of the D₃C₂ metric can be done.

	(foreground) ColourEntry	(background) ColourEntry	(transparent) ColourEntry	(pictureBackground) ColourEntry	(picture) Picture
ColourSettings	0	0	0	1	1
restore	1	0	0	0	0
toString	1	1	1	1	0
toString	0	0	0	0	0

Table 2

Proposed DAT matrix (Semantic DAT)

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

It needs several things to test the prototype. The input is the class diagram that is exported as an XML file by using Visual Paradigm. The data selected for this testing is the source code of the application jDraw version 1.1.5 available on the website www.sourceforge.net.

5.1. Result

The result of the calculation will be compared with the manual observation to get the conformance between the approach. Calculating the conformance between approach is using the Kappa coefficient. The Kappa coefficient between the previous approach and the semantic approach is descript in Tables 3 and 4.

KOHENS KAPPA

	Observer

System	Y	N	Total
Y	49	343	392
N	123	1401	1524
Total	172	1744	1916
Po	0.756785
Pc	0.7423695
Kappa	0.055954	Slight agreement

Table 3

Kappa of the previous approach

KOHENS KAPPA

	Observer

System	Y	N	Total
Y	54	82	136
N	118	1662	1780
Total	172	1744	1916
Po	0.895616
Pc	0.851992
Kappa	0.29474	Fair agreement

Table 4

Kappa of semantic approach

The result shows that there is an increment of value of Kappa from 0.055954 to 0.29474 between the previous and semantic approaches. Based on the level of Kappa, it is also increasing from slight agreement to fair agreement.

5.2. Discussion

Examples of cases of jDraw are a class named ColourSettings, as illustrated in Figure 1. Table 5 shows the result of calculation D₃C₂ using the previous approach and the semantic approach.

Previous approach				Semantic approach

MMAC	ACC	AMC	D₃C₂	MMAC	ACC	AMC	D₃C₂
0.0	0.1	0.21	0.14	0.05	0.11	0.29	0.2

Table 5

Comparison D₃C₂ value

D₃C₂ metric final results showed an increase in the value of 0.144 into 0.2 (0.056 difference). In a previous study, attributes pictureBackground has no connection with the method ColourSettings (constructor), due to ColourEntry data types not contained in the type parameter or returns the data type of a method ColourSettings. pictureBackground has close meaning with the method ColourSettings and parameter aPicture using the semantic approach. In the source code of method ColourSettings, the method manipulates attributes pictureBackground. It shows that there is a connection between the pictureBackground attribute with a constructor method ColourSettings. Figure 3 shows the presence of pictureBackgound in the body of the ColourSettings method.

6. CONCLUSION

Cohesion calculation at the design phase has challenges because of the lack of information is provided by the design artifact, such as class diagram. The application of the semantic approach in calculating D₃C₂ metrics can increase the conformance of the calculation results. In the future, it is essential if there is any additional information considered other than class diagrams.

The process flow in the method described in the flow diagram or pseudo code in the design phase is worth considering.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

AUTHORS INTRODUCTION

Bayu Priyambadha

He has received his Bachelor of Computer from 10 November Institute of Technology Surabaya. He also has got a Master of Computer from 10 November Institute of Technology Surabaya. He is a member of the Software Engineering Research Group (SERG) in the Faculty of Computer Science, Brawijaya University, Indonesia. He is currently a doctoral student at the University of Miyazaki, Japan. His current research interest is Software Engineering, Software Design, Software Quality, and Software Maintenance.

Tetsuro Katayama

He received a PhD degree in engineering from Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan in 1996. From 1996 to 2000 he has been a Research Associate at the Graduate School of Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Japan. Since 2000 he has been an Associate Professor at Faculty of Engineering, Miyazaki University, Japan. He is currently a Professor with the Faculty of Engineering, University of Miyazaki, Japan. His research interests include software testing and quality. He is a member of the IPSJ, IEICE, and JSSST.

Yoshihiro Kita

He received a PhD degree in systems engineering from the University of Miyazaki, Japan, in 2011. He is currently an Associate Professor with the Faculty of Information Systems, University of Nagasaki, Japan. His research interests include software testing and biometrics authentication.

Hisaaki Yamaba

He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in chemical engineering from the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, in 1988 and 1990, respectively, and the PhD degree in systems engineering from the University of Miyazaki, Japan, in 2011. He is currently an Assistant Professor with the Faculty of Engineering, University of Miyazaki, Japan. His research interests include network security and user authentication. He is a member of SICE and SCEJ.

Kentaro Aburada

He received the B.S., M.S., and PhD degrees in computer science and system engineering from the University of Miyazaki, Japan, in 2003, 2005, and 2009, respectively. He is currently an Associate Professor with the Faculty of Engineering, University of Miyazaki, Japan. His research interests include computer networks and security. He is a member of IPSJ and IEICE.

Naonobu Okazaki

He received his B.S., M.S., and PhD degrees in electrical and communication engineering from Tohoku University, Japan, in 1986, 1988 and 1992, respectively. He joined the Information Technology Research and Development Center, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation in 1991. He is currently a Professor with the Faculty of Engineering, University of Miyazaki since 2002. His research interests include mobile network and network security. He is a member of IPSJ, IEICE and IEEE.

REFERENCES

[1]I Sommerville, Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 2010.

[2]J Al Dallal, A design-based cohesion metric for object-oriented classes, Int. J. Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng., Vol. 1, 2007, pp. 195-200.

[3]J Al Dallal and LC Briand, An object-oriented high-level design-based class cohesion metric, Inform. Softw. Technol., Vol. 52, 2010, pp. 1346-1361.

[4]I Chowdhury and M Zulkernine, Using complexity, coupling, and cohesion metrics as early indicators of vulnerabilities, J. Syst. Architect., Vol. 57, 2011, pp. 294-313.

[5]RS Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, seventh ed., McGraw-Hill, 2009.

[6]Z Chen, Y Zhou, B Xu, J Zhao, and H Yang, A novel approach to measuring class cohesion based on dependence analysis, IEEE, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Software Maintenance (2002), pp. 377-384.

[7]J Al Dallal and LC Briand, A precise method-method interaction-based cohesion metric for object-oriented classes, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 1-34.

[8]T Wei, Y Lu, H Chang, Q Zhou, and X Bao, A semantic approach for text clustering using WordNet and lexical chains, Expert Syst. Appl., Vol. 42, 2015, pp. 2264-2275.

[9]JB Gao, BW Zhang, and XH Chen, A WordNet-based semantic similarity measurement combining edge-counting and information content theory, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., Vol. 39, 2015, pp. 80-88.

[10]GA Miller, WordNet: a lexical database for English, Commun. ACM, Vol. 38, 1995, pp. 39-41.

[11]Z Wu and M Palmer, Verb semantics and lexical selection, in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (1994), pp. 133-138.

[12]R Dijkman, M Dumas, B van Dongen, R Käärik, and J Mendling, Similarity of business process models: metrics and evaluation, Inform. Syst., Vol. 36, 2011, pp. 498-516.

<Previous Article In Issue

Download article (PDF)

Next Article In Issue>

Journal: Journal of Robotics, Networking and Artificial Life
Volume-Issue: 7 - 4
Pages: 270 - 274
Publication Date: 2020/12/31
ISSN (Online): 2352-6386
ISSN (Print): 2405-9021
DOI: 10.2991/jrnal.k.201215.013 How to use a DOI?
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Cite this article

ris enw bib

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bayu Priyambadha
AU  - Tetsuro Katayama
AU  - Yoshihiro Kita
AU  - Hisaaki Yamaba
AU  - Kentaro Aburada
AU  - Nanoubu Okazaki
PY  - 2020
DA  - 2020/12/31
TI  - Utilizing the Similarity Meaning of Label in Class Cohesion Calculation
JO  - Journal of Robotics, Networking and Artificial Life
SP  - 270
EP  - 274
VL  - 7
IS  - 4
SN  - 2352-6386
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2991/jrnal.k.201215.013
DO  - 10.2991/jrnal.k.201215.013
ID  - Priyambadha2020
ER  -

download .riscopy to clipboard