Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency

This thesis describes modelling and measuring structural complexity mesure of Prolog program based on rule-dependency. Rule-dependency can be defined as relationships or interaction between rules. Usually, Prolog program is constructed by rules. These rules are Horn clause subset of the clausal form...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Alizam, Jonie
Format:	Thesis
Language:	eng eng
Published:	2005
Subjects:	QA71-90 Instruments and machines
Online Access:	https://etd.uum.edu.my/1794/1/ALIZAM_JONIE_-_MODELLING_AND_MEASURING_STRUCTURAL_COMPLEXITY_OF_PROLOG.....pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/1794/2/1.ALIZAM_JONIE_-_MODELLING_AND_MEASURING_STRUCTURAL_COMPLEXITY_OF_PROLOG.....pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-uum-etd.1794
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection	UUM ETD
language	eng eng
topic	QA71-90 Instruments and machines
spellingShingle	QA71-90 Instruments and machines Alizam, Jonie Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency
description	This thesis describes modelling and measuring structural complexity mesure of Prolog program based on rule-dependency. Rule-dependency can be defined as relationships or interaction between rules. Usually, Prolog program is constructed by rules. These rules are Horn clause subset of the clausal form of first-order predicate logic. It is believed that rule-dependency is significant element of complexity and this research investigates to corroborate the claim especially on how rule dependency can be used to model and model and measure Prolog's structural complexity. This research is motivated by the lack of measures developed for Prolog due to the implicit control flow and construct. This lack of explicit control flow and constructs precludes in adapting conventional measures to Prolog program. This thesis shall present models that can be used to partially solve this problem that can enable direct application of existing measures tp Prolog program. To do measurement four criteria are explicitly defined: (1) attribute of entity, (2) abstraction or model, (3) ordering relationships, and (4) order-preserving mapping. These criteria are based on representational approach of measurement theory. The model Prolog's control flow and construct are modelled in the second criteria, while the measure is achieved by completing the process from identification of entity and attribute into numbers.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	masters
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Alizam, Jonie
author_facet	Alizam, Jonie
author_sort	Alizam, Jonie
title	Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency
title_short	Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency
title_full	Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency
title_fullStr	Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency
title_full_unstemmed	Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency
title_sort	modelling and measuring structural complexity of prolog program based on rule-dependency
granting_institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department	College of Business (COB)
publishDate	2005
url	https://etd.uum.edu.my/1794/1/ALIZAM_JONIE_-_MODELLING_AND_MEASURING_STRUCTURAL_COMPLEXITY_OF_PROLOG.....pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/1794/2/1.ALIZAM_JONIE_-_MODELLING_AND_MEASURING_STRUCTURAL_COMPLEXITY_OF_PROLOG.....pdf
_version_	1747827206679166976
spelling	my-uum-etd.17942013-07-24T12:13:11Z Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency 2005 Alizam, Jonie College of Business (COB) Faculty of Information Technology QA71-90 Instruments and machines This thesis describes modelling and measuring structural complexity mesure of Prolog program based on rule-dependency. Rule-dependency can be defined as relationships or interaction between rules. Usually, Prolog program is constructed by rules. These rules are Horn clause subset of the clausal form of first-order predicate logic. It is believed that rule-dependency is significant element of complexity and this research investigates to corroborate the claim especially on how rule dependency can be used to model and model and measure Prolog's structural complexity. This research is motivated by the lack of measures developed for Prolog due to the implicit control flow and construct. This lack of explicit control flow and constructs precludes in adapting conventional measures to Prolog program. This thesis shall present models that can be used to partially solve this problem that can enable direct application of existing measures tp Prolog program. To do measurement four criteria are explicitly defined: (1) attribute of entity, (2) abstraction or model, (3) ordering relationships, and (4) order-preserving mapping. These criteria are based on representational approach of measurement theory. The model Prolog's control flow and construct are modelled in the second criteria, while the measure is achieved by completing the process from identification of entity and attribute into numbers. 2005 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/1794/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/1794/1/ALIZAM_JONIE_-_MODELLING_AND_MEASURING_STRUCTURAL_COMPLEXITY_OF_PROLOG.....pdf application/pdf eng validuser https://etd.uum.edu.my/1794/2/1.ALIZAM_JONIE_-_MODELLING_AND_MEASURING_STRUCTURAL_COMPLEXITY_OF_PROLOG.....pdf application/pdf eng public masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Apt, K. R, & Smaus, J. G. (2001). Rule-based versus Procedure-based View of Programming. Joint Bulletin of the Novosibirsk Computing Center and Institute of Informatics Systems Series: Computer Science, 16, p. 75 — 97. Barr, V. (1996). Rule—Based System Testing with Control and Data Flow Techniques. International Software Quality-Week 1996. Baker, L. A., Bieman J. M, Fenton, N, Gustafson, D. A., Melton, A., & Whitty, R. (1990). A Philosophy for Software Measurement (electronic version). Journal of Systems and Software, 12, p. 277 — 281. Bieman, J. M., Fenton, N, Gustafson, D. A, Melton, A. & Ott, L. M. (1995). Fundamental Issues in Software Measurement, In Austin Melton (Ed.). Software Measurement, p. 39 — 52. UK: International Thomson Computer. Bieman, J. M. (1995). Metric Development for Object-Oriented Software. In Austin Melton (Ed.). Software Measurement, p. 75 — 92. UK: International Thomson Computer. Bratko, I. (2001). PROLOG: Programming for Artificial Intelligence 3nd ed. Singapore: Addison-Wesley. Briand, L,. Morasca, S., & Basili, V. (1994). Property Based Software Engineering Measurement (electronic version). Technical Report CS-TR-119. University of Maryland. Briand, L., Emam, K. E., & Morasca, S. (1995a). On the Application of Measurement Theory in Software Engineering (electronic version). Technical Report ISERN-95-04. International Software Engineering Research Network. Briand, L., Emam, K. E. & Morasca, S. (l995b). Theoretical and Empirical Validation of Software Product Measures. Technical Report ISERN-95-03. International Software Engineering Research Network. Cardoso, A.I., Kokol, P. & Crespo R. G. (2000). Two different views about software complexity. 11th European Software Control and Metrics Conference, p. 433 - 438. Cardoso, A. I., Kokol, P. & Crespo, R. G (2002). How to measure the complexity of a program text. Proceedings of the third International Symposium on Engineering of intelligent Systems, p. 119 - 122. Carson, P. A. & Hunter, R. B. (1992). Source-Code Models and Their Use in Assessing Software Quality. EUROMETRICS’ 92, p. 83 — 84. Chen, Jeng-Rung & Cheng, A.M.K. (1994). A Fast, Partially Parallelizable Algorithm for Predicting Execution Time of EQL Rule-Based Programs, In Jagdish Chandra (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on Parallel Processing, p. 17-20. Ciancarini, P. & Levi, G. (1995). Applications of Logic Programming in Software Engineering (electronic version). PAP Workshop on Logic Programming and Software Engineering. Retrieved: (n.d.) from site: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/326955.html Clocksin, W. F. & Mellish, C. S. (1984). Programming in Prolog 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag. Conte, S. D., Dunsmore, H. E. & Shen, V. Y. (1986). Software Engineering Metrics And Models. UK: Benjamin Cummings Publishing. Covington, M. A., Nute, D. & Vellino, A. (1997). Prolog Programming in Depth. London: Prentice-Hall International. Dick, R. (1993). Subjective Software Measurement - Tools for the Human Assessor. Esprit Project SCOPE Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Retrieved: Jun 29, 2002 from site: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/433040.html. Emam, K. E. (2000). A Methodology for Validating Software Product Metrics (electronic version). Technical Report NRC 44142. National Research Council of Canada. Retrieved September 25, 2001 from http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/publications/nrc-44l42_e.html. Fenton, N. E. & Melton, A. (1995). Measurement Theory and Software Measurement, In Austin Melton (Ed.), Software Measurement, p. 27-38. UK: International Thomson Computer. Fenton, N. E. (1991). Software Metrics a Rigorous Approach. London: Chapman & Hall. Fenton, N. E. & Pfleeger, S. L. (1997). Software Metrics a Rigorous Approach 2nd Edition. London: International Thomson. Gordon, R. D. & Halstead, M. H. (1976). An Experiment Comparing Fortran Programming Time with the Software Physics Hypothesis, Proceeding AFIPS, p. 935-937. Gross, J . & Yellen, J. (1998). Graph Theory and Its Applications. USA: CRC Press. Gustafson, D. A., Tan, J. T. & Weaver, P. (1995). Software Metric Specifications. In Austin Melton (Ed.). Software Measurement, p. 179 — 195. UK: International Thomson Computer. Hao, W. (1999). Software Metrics Collection Techniques for Product Assessment. Retrieved August 27, 2001 from Wang Hao’s Homepage site [offline]: http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~wanghao/ic52a5_content.html Hass, M. & Hassel, J. (1983). A Proposal for a Measure of Program Understanding. Proceedings of the Fourteenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, p. 7-13. Henry, S. & Kafura, D. (1981). Software Structure Metrics based on Information Flow. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 7(5), p. 510-518. Kaposi, A. A. (1993). Measurement Theory, In John A. McDermid (Ed.). Software Engineer’s Reference Book. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kearney, J. P., Sedlmeyer, R. L., Thompson, W. B., Gray, M. A. & Adler, M. A. (1986). Software Complexity Measurement. Communications of the ACM 29(11), p. 1044-1050. Luger, G. F. (2002). Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education. Mansouri, F. Z., Gibbon, C. A. & Higgins, C. A. (1998). PRAM: Prolog Automatic Marker. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on the Teaching of Computing, p. 166-170. Marco, L. (1997). Measuring Software Complexity (electronic version). Enterprise System Journal. Retrieved August 27, 2001 from http://cispom.boisestate.edu/cis320emaxson/metrics.htm Markusz, Z. & Kaposi, A. A. (1985). Complexity Control in Logic-based Programming (electronic version). The Computer Journal, 28(5), p. 487-495. McCabe, T. J. (1976). A Complexity Measure (electronic version). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2(4), p. 308-320. McCauley, R. A & Edwards, W. R. (1995). Analysis and Measurement Techniques For Logic-Based Languages. In Austin Melton (Ed.), Software Measurement, p. 93 — 133. UK: International Thomson Computer. McDermid, J. A. (2000). Complexity: Concept, Causes and Control. Proceedings Sixth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, p. 2-9. McGarry, J., Card, D., Jones, C., Layman, B., Clark, E., Dean, J. & Hall, F. (2002). Practical Software Measurement. USA: Addison-Wesley. Melton, A. C., Gustafson, D. A, Bieman, J. M., & Baker, A. L. (1990). A Mathematical Perspective of Software Measures Research. IEE/BCS Software Engineering Journal, 5(5), p. 246-254. Moores, T. T. (1998). Applying Complexity Measures to Rule-based Prolog Programs. Journal of Systems and Software, 44(1), p. 45-52. Morasca, S. (2001). Software Measurement. In S.K. Chang (Ed.), Handbook Of Software Engineering And Knowledge Engineering Volume 1: Fundamentals, p. 239 — 276. USA: World Scientific. Neal, R. D., Coppins, R. J., & Weistroffer, H. R. (1997). The Assignment of Scale to Object-Oriented Software Measures. Working Report NCCW-0040. NASA. Nilsson. U. & Maluszynski, J. (2000). Logic, Programming And Prolog 2nd ed. (electronic version). Retrieved December 28, 2003 from http://www.ida.liu.se/~ulf`ni/lpp. O’Neal, M. B & Edward, W. R. (1994). Complexity Measures For Rule-Based Programs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge Data Engineering, 6(5), p. 669-680. Otto, K. N. (1994). Measurement Methods for Product Evaluation. Research in Engineering Design, p. 157-166. Ott, L. M. (1995). The Early Days of Software Metrics: Looking Back After 20 Years, In Austin Melton (Ed,). Software Measurement, p. 7-25. UK: informational Thomson Computer. Ottenstein, K. J. & Ottenstein, L. M. (1984). The Program Dependence Graph in a Software Development Environment. ACM Software Engineering Notes, 9(3), p. 177-184. Oviedo, E. (1980). Control Flow, Data Flow and Program Complexity. Proceedings COMPSAC 80, p, 146-152. Prather R. E. (1984). An Axiomatic Theory of Software Complexity Measure (electronic version). The Computer Journal, 27(4), p. 340-347. Prather, R. E. (1995). The Role of Recursion and Symmetry in the Design and Analysis of Software Metrics, In Austin Melton (Ed.). Software Measurement, p. 145-156. UK: International Thomson Computer. Pressman, R. S. (1992). Software Engineering: A Practitioners Approach 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Riguzzi, F. (1996). A Survey of Software Metrics. Technical Report DEIS-LIA-96-010. DEIS. Universita degli Studi di Bologna. Robinson, J. A. (1965). A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle. Journal of the ACM 12(1), p. 23 -41. Rubey, R. J , & Hartwick R. D. (1968). Quantitative Measurement of Program Quality. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM National Conference, p. 671-677. Sebesta, W. Robert (1996). Concepts of Programming Languages 3rd ed. USA: Addison-Wesley. Sellappan, P. (2000). Software Engineering: Management & Methods. Malaysia: Sejana Publishing. Shepperd, M. (1995). Foundations Of Software Measurement. London: Prentice Hall. Shepperd, M. (1993). Software Measurement: Past, Present and Future. In Martin Shepherd (Ed.), Software Engineering Metrics Volume 1: Measures & Validations. UK: McGraw-Hill. Tsai, Jefferey J. P. & Jen, Yuan-Heng (1997). Evaluation Of Rule Based Systems (electronic version). Retrieved May 23, 2001 from [offline]: http;//kel3.eecs.uic.edu/USAF/cplxdf3/doccp\|xdf.html Van den Berg, K,G & Van den Broek, P.M. (1995). Axiomatic Validation in the Software Metric Development Process. In Austin Melton (Ed.), Software Measurement, p. 157-177. UK: International Thomson Computer. Weyuker, E. J. (1988). Evaluating Software Complexity Measures (electronic version). IEEE Transaction of Software Engineering, 14(9), p. 1357-1365. Zhao, J., Cheng, J. & Ushijima, K. (1998). A Metrics Suite for Concurrent Logic Programs (electronic version). Proceedings of the 2nd Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance & Re-engineering, p. 172-178. Retrieved February 28, 2001, from http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/35967.html. Zuse, Horst. (1995). History of Software Measurement. Retrieved June 3, 2001 from Dr. Ing. Horst Zuse, Software Measurement - Software Metrics site: http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/sme.html

Modelling and Measuring Structural Complexity of Prolog Program Based on Rule-Dependency

Similar Items