Classes of COTS products can be derived by classification attributes, which define a Cartesian space. Examples of such attributes are the architectural level, the kind of the COTS product (is it a standard, or a service, or an executable component?), and the software life cycle phase in which the product is used (is it a development tool or an executable component?). COTS products belonging to the same class can be evaluated and compared by means of evaluation attributes, such as price or type of license. This work has been conceived mainly for learning purposes. Building a classification schema and filling it with products is a way for COTS product familiarization. In addition, the process of defining classes and filling them with COTS poses new research questions, like “why is this class empty?”, or “which are the relationships between these two classes?”. The result of classification and evaluation process cannot have general validity if it not customized for special organization goals. These customization issues are outside the scope of this work.
Classifying COTS products / Jaccheri, Letizia; Torchiano, Marco. - STAMPA. - (2002), pp. 246-255. (Intervento presentato al convegno 7th European Conference on Software Quality tenutosi a Helsinki, Finland nel June 9-13) [10.1007/3-540-47984-8_28].
Classifying COTS products
TORCHIANO, MARCO
2002
Abstract
Classes of COTS products can be derived by classification attributes, which define a Cartesian space. Examples of such attributes are the architectural level, the kind of the COTS product (is it a standard, or a service, or an executable component?), and the software life cycle phase in which the product is used (is it a development tool or an executable component?). COTS products belonging to the same class can be evaluated and compared by means of evaluation attributes, such as price or type of license. This work has been conceived mainly for learning purposes. Building a classification schema and filling it with products is a way for COTS product familiarization. In addition, the process of defining classes and filling them with COTS poses new research questions, like “why is this class empty?”, or “which are the relationships between these two classes?”. The result of classification and evaluation process cannot have general validity if it not customized for special organization goals. These customization issues are outside the scope of this work.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11583/1418526
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo