MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling and Analyzing Non-Functional Requirements in Service Oriented Architecture with the User Requirements Notation

2011· book-chapter· en· W2477850013 on OpenAlexaff
Hanane Becha, Gunter Mussbacher, Daniel Amyot

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNotationService (business)Functional requirementSoftware engineeringService-oriented architectureService delivery frameworkQuality of serviceNon-functional requirementService designDifferentiated serviceWeb serviceWorld Wide WebProgramming languageSoftwareSoftware systemComputer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-functional properties (NFPs) represent an important facet of service descriptions, especially in a Service Oriented Architecture. Yet, they are seldom explicitly described, and their use in service selection and composition is still limited. This chapter presents the User Requirements Notation (URN) as a means to model and analyze functional and non-functional service requirements. Aspect-oriented extensions to URN (AoURN) enable the modeling and modularization of different concerns, including non-functional requirements, which can crosscut services or service components. The chapter also proposes a taxonomy of NFPs used to annotate services and service compositions modeled with AoURN. These annotations enable the specification of quantitative non-functional values for services, guide service selection, and support the computation of the NFP (e.g., the quality of service) of their composition. This approach is illustrated with a simple yet realistic composite service (BookItWell), with an emphasis on four types of NFPs, namely service cost, response time, reliability, and availability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207