Semantic Analysis of RESTful APIs for the Detection of Linguistic Patterns and Antipatterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifier lexicon may have a direct impact on software understandability and reusability and, thus, on the quality of the final software product. Understandability and reusability are two important characteristics of software quality. REpresentational State Transfer (REST) style is becoming a de facto standard adopted by software organizations to build their Web applications. Understandable and reusable Uniform Resource Identifers (URIs) are important to attract client developers of RESTful APIs because good URIs support the client developers to understand and reuse the APIs. Consequently, the use of proper lexicon in RESTful APIs has also a direct impact on the quality of Web applications that integrate these APIs. Linguistic antipatterns represent poor practices in the naming, documentation, and choice of identifiers in the APIs as opposed to linguistic patterns that represent the corresponding best practices. In this paper, we present the Semantic Analysis of RESTful APIs (SARA) approach that employs both syntactic and semantic analyses for the detection of linguistic patterns and antipatterns in RESTful APIs. We provide detailed definitions of 12 linguistic patterns and antipatterns and define and apply their detection algorithms on 18 widely-used RESTful APIs, including Facebook, Twitter, and Dropbox. Our detection results show that linguistic patterns and antipatterns do occur in major RESTful APIs in particular in the form of poor documentation practices. Those results also show that SARA can detect linguistic patterns and antipatterns with higher accuracy compared to its state-of-the-art approach — DOLAR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".