JP6287314B2 - Software asset utilization apparatus, software asset utilization method and program - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a software asset utilization device, a software asset utilization method, and a program, and more particularly to a method for estimating a related range of software assets.

  In order for companies to design, construct, and operate information systems, various information, for example, information (business processes) that defines the content (business processes) of business in which information systems (hereinafter simply referred to as systems) are used. Definition information), system design information, source code, test specification information, operation specification information, and the like. These pieces of information are generally called software assets.

  Conventionally, various tools for managing and utilizing such software assets have been proposed.

JP 2009-276911 A JP 2008-123432 A

  In the course of using a system over a long period of time, companies and the like often accumulate system expansions and modifications in view of the purpose of the company's activities. As a result, the system becomes intricately intertwined with various new and old software, hardware, and development technologies, making it difficult to grasp the entire software assets. This makes it difficult to expand and modify the system (renewal), and companies cannot quickly make the best and best system changes according to the changes in the purpose and requirements of activities and miss business opportunities. Faced with such problems.

  Conventional software asset management tools do not adequately address this problem. The factors are as follows, for example.

  The relationship between business processes and system implementation (for example, design, source code, operation specifications, etc.) is not always written as a document, but is often formed as tacit knowledge. These tacit knowledge cannot be managed by conventional software management tools. For this reason, when the system is renewed, for example, it takes a lot of time to investigate the range of influence on the business by remodeling. Furthermore, if the affected range cannot be determined in advance, a problem is detected in the evaluation phase at the end of the system renewal, resulting in wasted time and costs.

  In some cases, the system design specifications do not match the system implementation (eg, source code, operation specifications, etc.), or the design document itself does not exist. In such a case, when renewing the system, it is necessary to directly decode the source code and specify the location to be modified and the influence range due to the modification, which requires a lot of time and cost.

  Even if the system renewal succeeds, the conventional software management tool does not provide an effective means for storing the information obtained in the process in a form that can be reused or maintained. Therefore, there is a high possibility that the same problem will occur again when a system renewal is required later. Therefore, the renewal cost cannot be sufficiently suppressed in the long term.

  For example, conventional software asset tools cannot manage software assets of the entire system, such as managing only source code only, or managing only information related to a specific user. Also, effective use of software assets has not been realized.

  For example, if a problem occurs in an application, the source code that makes up the application and the information related to documents such as specifications related to the application are not organized, and it is necessary to collect information about them manually. there were.

  Specifically, when a problem occurs in a version of a software module, the developer checks whether a similar problem exists in another version of the module. At this time, a conventional developer performs the above-described confirmation work one by one with respect to the source code and documents constituting each version, and therefore, a lot of man-hours have been spent for this purpose.

  In addition, a conventional developer uses a function name or a class name in which a problem is found in a certain version of a module to perform a search by using a grep command or the like, and there is a potential problem in another version of the module. You may want to check if you have not. However, with this method, if the function name or class name was changed between versions, there was a possibility of overlooking a potential problem. The grep command searches only the OS standard text file. For this reason, there is a limit to improving the work efficiency and accuracy of documents and the like that cannot be confirmed with an OS standard text editor, rather than visually confirming them.

  The present invention has been made to solve such problems, and it is an object of the present invention to provide a software asset utilization apparatus, a software asset utilization method, and a program capable of estimating the related range of software assets.

  The software asset utilization apparatus according to the present invention arranges information nodes, which are individual information units constituting software assets, in blocks divided according to abstraction and detail, and relates the relationship between the information nodes. A repository that holds an asset management matrix set by a link, one or more version information, and information indicating whether each of the information node and the relational link is valid or invalid in each version information; Enter a first information node that is valid in the first version information and has a problem, and is valid in the first version information, and is one or more associated with the first information node A first relationship link, and one or more associated with the first information node by the first relationship link 2 information nodes are compared with the first relation link and the second information node, which are valid in the second version information other than the first version information, and valid in the second version And a third information node that can be evaluated as equivalent to the first information node is found, the third information node may be identified as a potential problem in the second version. And an information analysis unit that estimates the information node.

  In the software asset utilization method according to the present invention, information nodes, which are individual information units constituting software assets, are arranged in blocks divided according to abstraction and detail, and the relationship between information nodes is related. Holding an asset management matrix set by a link, one or more version information, and information indicating whether each of the information node and the relational link is valid or invalid in each version information; A step of inputting a first information node that is valid in the first version information and in which a problem has occurred; and 1 that is valid in the first version information and associated with the first information node It is linked to the first information node by the first relation link and the first relation link. Comparing one or more second information nodes with the first relationship link and the second information node that are valid in second version information other than the first version information; If a third information node is found that is valid in the second version and can be evaluated as equivalent to the first information node, the third information node is identified as the problem in the second version. Inferring that there is a possibility of the information node.

  A program according to the present invention is a program for causing a computer to execute the software asset utilization method.

  According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a software asset utilization apparatus, a software asset utilization method, and a program capable of estimating the related range of software assets.

It is a figure which shows the structure of the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the structure of the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the management method of the software asset in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the example of the information holding part 8 and the link table 10 in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment. It is a figure which shows the influence range estimation process in the software asset utilization apparatus 100 concerning embodiment.

Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings.
FIG. 1-1 illustrates a basic configuration of the software asset utilization apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment. FIG. 1-2 shows a more preferable configuration of the software asset utilization apparatus 100. The software asset utilization device 100 includes a repository 4 for holding information constituting software assets, and a processing device 3 that performs input, extraction, analysis, and the like of information to the repository 4. Moreover, it is preferable to provide the output device 2 which presents a user with the input device 1 for performing input operation with respect to a process part, the processing result of the processing device 3, etc. to a user.

  The software asset utilization device 100 is typically a computer, and includes a central control device that executes various processes based on a control program, a volatile or nonvolatile storage device that stores the control program, the repository 4, and the like. The However, the computer does not need to be physically single, and a plurality of computers may perform various processes in a distributed manner.

  The input device 1 is an input interface from the user to the processing device 3, and functions as a unit for inputting information stored in the repository 4, for example. For example, it may be a keyboard, a mouse, a communication interface, or the like.

  The output device 2 is an output interface from the processing device 3 to the user, and is used for outputting various processing results. For example, it functions as a means for extracting information stored in the repository 4 to the outside. For example, it may be a display, a printer, a communication interface, or the like.

  The processing device 3 includes an information input unit 5 that stores information in the repository 4, an information extraction unit 6 that extracts information in the repository 4 according to various conditions and formats, and information that analyzes the extracted information using a predetermined method. An analysis unit 7 is included.

  The repository 4 includes, for example, an information holding unit 8 that stores information constituting software assets, a keyword holding unit 9 that holds keywords assigned to each information, and information on the relationship between pieces of information constituting software assets. It has a link table 10 for storing. The repository 4 is a logical storage unit provided in a storage device (not shown) included in the software asset utilization device 100.

(Repository)
Here, with reference to FIGS. 2-1 to 2-9, what kind of concept the repository 4 manages software assets will be described.

As described above, a software asset is a collection of various pieces of information. Individual information units constituting these software assets are called information nodes. For example, a group of meaningful information (information unit) constituting business definition information, system design information, source code, test specification information, operation specification information, and the like is an information node.
On the other hand, the substance of information represented as an information node in the repository 4 is called a module. For example, when a file source “source file A” exists on the storage device and meta information about the “source file A” is managed as “source A” in the repository 4, “source file A” "Is called a module, and" Source A "is called an information node. If documented software assets exist, all or part of the document data existing on the storage device is a module, and the meta information of the document managed in the repository 4 is an information node. It is. The repository 4 can also have information nodes that do not have entities. For example, even if there is no document describing the A function, if the information system requires the A function, the user creates a so-called empty information node with the name of the A function and stores it in the repository 4. Can be stored.

(Matrix and block)
The repository 4 stores each of these information nodes after classifying them according to two evaluation criteria of “abstract level” and “detail level”. The “abstract level” and “detail level” are each provided with a plurality of levels. Information nodes are assigned to any of these multiple levels. That is, the repository 4 allocates and stores information nodes at any position on the matrix defined by the two axes of “abstract level” and “detail level”.

  FIG. 2A illustrates a matrix assumed in the present embodiment. In this example, the vertical axis of the matrix indicates “abstraction” and the horizontal axis indicates “detail”. The “abstract level” and “detail level” increase as the distance from the origin increases. That is, an information node including more abstract or detailed contents is stored at a position further away from the origin. In the present embodiment, the level of “abstract level” and “detail level” is identified by a level number. That is, the level with the smallest “abstraction” and “detail” is called level number “1”. Hereinafter, as the “abstract level” and “detail level” increase, the level numbers “2”, “3”,.

  Note that the vertical and horizontal sizes (number of levels) of the matrix are not fixed, and can be set freely by the user according to the size and complexity of the software assets to be managed.

  The position on the matrix to which the information node is assigned is called a block. In the present embodiment, each block is specified by a set of two numbers in the format of “abstraction level number-detail level level number”. For example, in FIG. 2A, the block to which the information node X is assigned is “1-2”.

(Abstract and detail)
Here, the significance of “abstraction” and “detail” will be described. The “abstraction level” is a scale for classifying information nodes according to the strength of dependency between information contents and system implementation. For example, when the five types of information nodes of business definition information, system design information, source code, test specification information, and operation specification information are classified into five levels of abstraction levels 1 to 5, the dependency on the implementation is the lowest. The business definition information is assigned to the highest abstraction level (abstraction level = 5). Thereafter, in order of increasing dependency on the implementation, abstraction level = 4 for system design information, abstraction level = 3 for source code, abstraction level = 2 for test specification information, and abstraction for operation specification information. Assign a degree level = 1.

  The “detail level” is a scale for classifying information nodes according to the level of design detail. For example, as shown in FIG. 2-3, as system design information, a function description in which an outline of the AA function is described in a natural language, and a data relation diagram in which data transition in the AA function is described in, for example, a DFD (Data Flow Diagram). When assigning the two types of information nodes to the two levels of detail levels 1 and 2, the data relation diagram having the highest design detail is assigned to the highest detail level (detail level = 2). On the other hand, a detail level = 1 is assigned to a function description having a relatively low design detail.

  In the repository 4, although the level of detail is different, information nodes having the same level of abstraction have the same level of abstraction, and information nodes having the same level of detail have the same level of detail. It is preferable to assign.

  FIG. 2-2 shows an example of a table structure for specifically realizing the repository 4. The software asset utilization apparatus 100 can include an information holding unit 8 having the above table structure in a storage area on a storage device (not shown), for example. The information holding unit 8 stores the information name for identifying the information node stored in the repository 4, the block indicating the position of the information node, and the actual storage location of the information node entity (information entity, for example, document data). It is possible to hold a plurality of records having at least the location of the information entity indicated. In the present embodiment, the entity of the information node is stored in an arbitrary storage location outside the information holding unit 8. The entity of the information node may be held in the record of the information holding unit 8.

(keyword)
In the repository 4, a keyword can be assigned to each information node. The relationship between information nodes and keywords will be described with reference to FIGS. 2-3 and 2-4.

  FIG. 2-3 shows a state in which information nodes AA, BB, CC, and DD are registered in the two blocks (1-1 and 1-2) of the information holding unit 8, respectively. The same logical configuration and terminology are used for the information entity (for example, function description) of the information node included in block 1-1 and the information entity (for example, data relation diagram) of the information node included in block 1-2. Such an event can occur because it is often the case. Here, the information node AA in the block 1-1 and the information node AA in the block 1-2 often have some semantic relationship. Therefore, in the repository 4, the same keyword can be assigned to these information nodes as a tag for identifying such a semantic relation.

  FIG. 2-4 shows an example of a table structure for specifically realizing the association between information nodes and keywords. The information holding unit 8 in FIG. 2-4 is given a unique number to each information node (record) as compared to the information holding unit 8 in FIG. 2-2, even if there are a plurality of information nodes having the same information name. They are different in that they are configured to be identifiable. In this example, there are two information names AA, two BBs, two CCs, and two DDs.

  The keyword holding unit 9 is a table including at least one record that associates at least a keyword name with an information number list. The information number list specifies a plurality of information nodes associated with a keyword by numbers in the information holding unit 8.

(Related link)
The repository 4 can hold information regarding the relationship between individual information nodes. This relationship is called a relationship link.

  The relational link can be set between a certain information node and another information node existing in the same block as the information node, a block having a different abstraction level, and a block having a different detail level only.

  In the present embodiment, at least the following four types of relational links can be set. The equality relationship is a relationship link that associates information nodes that represent the same object or event based on different purposes or viewpoints. The subordinate relationship is a relational link that associates an information node that is a certain superordinate concept with an information node that is a subordinate concept or component of the information node. The refinement relationship is a relationship link that associates a certain information node with an information node that is a more detailed information node. The materialization relationship is a relationship link that associates an information node that represents an abstract concept with an information node that further materializes the information node. In addition to the above, an arbitrary relation link can be set in order to express the relevance of data between information nodes, the processing order, and the like.

  Note that the refinement relationship may be set between information nodes having different detail levels, or may be set between information nodes having the same detail level. The materialization relationship may be set between information nodes having different abstraction levels, or may be set between information nodes having the same abstraction level. In addition, it is preferable that the repository 4 holds a flag indicating whether the detailing relationship or the materializing relationship crosses the level of detail or the level of abstraction.

  FIG. 2-5 shows an organization structure and a business structure of a virtual company using two relationship links of a subordinate relationship and “related”. Here, it is assumed that “related” is a relational link indicating input / output information related to a certain business. This figure shows the following facts: This company has software assets (eg, documented manuals) related to “business flow”. This “business flow” includes a business flow related to the “sales department”. The business flow of the “sales department” is composed of three tasks, “order received”, “inventory check”, and “shipment instruction”. The input / output information in each business is “Order Form”, “Manufacturing Instruction”, and “Shipping Instruction”.

  2-6 is an example of a table structure for specifically realizing the relational link of FIG. 2-5. The information holding unit 8 in FIG. 2-6 is different from the information holding unit 8 in FIG. 2-4 in that it has “outgoing link” and “incoming link” elements. Here, “outgoing link” identifies a related link starting from the information node by a number defined in the link table 10 (described later). The “incoming link” identifies a related link whose end point is the information node by a number defined in the link table 10 (described later).

  The outgoing link and incoming link elements are not essential elements in the configuration of the information holding unit 8. The element overlaps with an element included in the link table 10 to be described later, and can be obtained by searching the link table 10 with the information node number. However, in actual operation, as the amount of information registered in the repository 4 increases, the search time for the link table 10 increases, and it is expected that the performance of the entire software asset utilization apparatus 100 will be greatly affected. Therefore, it is effective to have the outgoing link and incoming link elements directly in the information holding table as a means for speeding up.

  The link table 10 is a table for defining and storing relational links established between a plurality of information nodes. The link table 10 includes one or more records having at least numbers, attributes, start point information, and end point information as elements. The number is an identifier for uniquely identifying the related link. The attribute indicates the type of relationship link. In the start point information, the information node that is the start point of the related link is specified by the number defined by the information holding unit 8. In the end point information, the information node that is the end point of the related link is specified by the number defined by the information holding unit 8.

  FIG. 2-7 shows the organization structure and business structure of a virtual company using two relational links: a peer relation and a refinement relation. Lines with arrows at both ends indicate equality. The equality relationship is set between information nodes having essentially the same meaning content in the same block. A line with an arrow on one side indicates a refinement relationship. In this example, the refinement relationship is set between information nodes located in blocks having different refinement levels.

  FIG. 2-8 shows the organization structure and business structure of a certain virtual company using the relational link of the materialization relationship. One line with an arrow indicates a materialization relationship. In this example, the materialization relationship is set between information nodes located in blocks having different abstraction levels.

  FIG. 2-9 shows an example in which the entire software assets related to the organizational structure and business structure of a certain virtual company are registered in the repository 4. FIG. 2-5, FIG. 2-7, and FIG. 2-8 described above are a part of this figure.

  A user uses the input device 1 via a predetermined user interface to input data related to information nodes, keywords, and related links to the processing device 3. Upon receiving these inputs, the information input unit 5 of the processing device 3 performs processing for storing data in the information holding unit 8, the keyword holding unit 9, the link table 10 and the like of the repository 4, respectively.

  In the present embodiment, a method for estimating the influence range of a problem found in a certain version of software using the information node and relation link structure constructed in the repository 4 is disclosed. Here, an information node where a problem has occurred in a certain version is referred to as a “problem node”. In addition, a relational link set for this problem occurrence node from another information node, that is, a relation link having the problem occurrence node as an end point is called an “input link”. A link set from this problem occurrence node to another information node, that is, a relation link starting from the problem occurrence node is referred to as an “output link”. Furthermore, the information node that is the start point of the input link is called an “input node”, and the information node that is the end point of the output link is called an “output node”.

  In the present embodiment, the information analysis unit 7 is a processing unit that performs a test for estimating an influence range of a problem found in a certain version of software. Hereinafter, this inspection function realized by the information analysis unit 7 is referred to as an influence range estimation function.

  A typical scene where the influence range estimation function is used is as follows. In other words, a problem occurs in a business system during operation of a business system in which software assets are stored in the software asset utilization device 100, and the developer investigates the cause of the problem, and the application is configured in the business system. It is a scene where it has been confirmed that there is a problem, in other words, the problem is latent.

  Here, the version of the application in which the problem has occurred is assumed to be X (notation Ver.X). In addition, Ver. Version one generation before X is Ver. (X-1), Ver. Version one generation after X is Ver. It will be referred to as (X + 1).

  FIG. 3 is an example of a specific table structure for managing the above version information. The information holding unit 8 (information holding table) in FIG. 3 has “valid period” information as compared with the information holding unit 8 (information holding table) in FIG. 2-4 or FIG. 2-6. Has characteristics. Here, the “valid period” includes “start” and “end” information as elements. “Start” indicates the version of the module when this information node is generated. “End” indicates the version of the last module in which this information node was valid, in other words, the version of the module in which this information node was last used. When this information node is valid even in the latest version of the module, the “end” version is represented as “−”.

  The link table 10 (link table) in FIG. 3 is characterized by having “valid period” information as compared with the link table 10 (link table) in FIG. 2-6. Here, the “valid period” includes “start” and “end” information as elements. “Start” indicates the version of the module when the relation link is generated. “End” indicates the version of the last module for which this relationship link was valid. When this relation link is valid even in the latest version of the module, the “end” version is expressed as “−”.

  Based on the above configuration, the operation when the information analysis unit 7 executes the influence range estimation function will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.

  First, the overall operation of the influence range estimation function will be described. The information analysis unit 7 is Ver. If “problem node” exists in X, Ver. For X-1, it is estimated whether there is a “node with potential problem”. Ver. If the existence of “a node with a potential problem” is presumed in X-1, Ver. For X-2, guess whether there is a “node with potential problem”. Thereafter, the same processing is performed retroactively until the existence of “a node having a potential problem” is estimated. If the existence of “a node that may have a potential problem” is estimated at any stage, the information analysis unit 7 ends the process at that stage. Similarly, the information analysis unit 7 is Ver. Generation after X, that is, Ver. X + 1, Ver. X + 2 ··· is also inspected to confirm “a node with a potential problem”.

  The flowchart of FIG. With reference to X, Ver. X-1, Ver. This is related to the process of discovering “a node with a potential problem” while going back the version with X-2. In addition, Ver. With reference to X, Ver. X + 1, Ver. As for the process of discovering “a node with a potential problem” while descending the version as X + 2... Since (X + n) can be executed in the same manner, the description is omitted in this specification.

  Hereinafter, using the flowchart of FIG. The process of finding a “node with a potential problem” existing in the past version while tracing back the version from X will be described.

  S101: First, the information analysis unit 7 uses a user input or the like to execute “problem occurrence node” and its version Ver. Get X. The information analysis unit 7 stores “problem occurrence node” in the problem potential node group. Here, the problem potential node group is a storage area for storing a “problem occurrence node” and a “node with a potential problem”.

  S102: The information analysis unit 7 obtains information related to the “problem occurrence node” from the information holding unit 8 and the link table 10 as shown in FIG. Extract valid information in X. Here, the information related to the “problem occurrence node” includes the “input link” and the “output link” set in the “problem occurrence node”, and the connection to the “problem occurrence node” via these relation links. “Input node” and “output node”. In addition, the information analysis part 7 is connected to the "input node" and the "output node" via the relation links other than the above set in the "input node" and the "output node". These nodes may also be extracted.

  For example, as shown in FIG. When the “problem occurrence node” existing in X is the node E, the information analysis unit 7 performs “input link” BE, DE, GE, “output link” EH, “input node” B, D, G, “output node” H, is extracted. In addition, the relationship links AB, AD, and IH ahead of these “input node” and “output node”, and information nodes A and I connected to the “input node” and “output node” through these relationship links are also included. It is good also as extracting. For example, the related link AB refers to a related link having the information node A as a start point and the information node B as an end point.

  All of the information extracted here is Ver. This is effective information for X. 8A, Ver. In X, valid information is indicated by a solid line, and invalid information is indicated by a broken line. Ver. Information that is not valid in X, such as “input link” CE and “input node” C, is not extracted here.

  S103: The information analysis unit 7 initializes the counter n with 0 as an initial setting. Also, n is incremented to n + 1. The counter at the first calculation is 1. The current version is Ver. (Xn). The current version at the time of the first calculation is Ver. X-1.

  S104: The information analysis unit 7 refers to the information holding unit 8 and the link table 10, and obtains related links such as “problem node”, “input link”, and “output link” acquired in S101 and S102, and “input node” "Information node" such as "Output node" is current version Ver. It is determined whether or not X-n is also effective.

  For example, as shown in FIG. In the case of X-1, Ver. Among the “problem nodes” E, relational links BE, DE, GE, EH, AB, AD, IH and information nodes B, D, G, H, A, and I that were valid in X, Ver. Information that is also valid in X-1 is relational links AB, AD, IH and information nodes B, D, G, H, A, I. In other words, “problem node” E, “input link” BE, DE, GE, and “output link” EH are Ver. X-1 is invalid.

  S105: The information analysis unit 7 determines that the current version Ver. In X-n, it is determined whether or not there is a “problem occurrence node” or a “node with a potential problem”. Here, “a node that may have a problem” is an information node different from the “problem occurrence node”, but the “problem occurrence node” in the relation link structure etc. with other information nodes. Is an information node evaluated to be equivalent to Since such an information node is equivalent to the “problem occurrence node” in its role and function, there is a possibility that the same problem as the “problem occurrence node” is latent.

  In FIG. A combination of states (valid or invalid) of “problem occurrence node”, “input node”, “output node”, “input link”, and “output link” in Xn is shown. Here, ◯ indicates that the information is valid and × indicates that it is invalid. Also, FIG. 5 extracts combinations of 13 patterns that may exist from the table of FIG. 4, and the relationship between “problem occurrence node”, “input node”, “output node”, “input link”, and “output link” in each of these combinations Is schematically shown.

  When the determination result in S104 is applied to any of the 13 patterns shown in FIG. 5, the information analysis unit 7 searches for “a node that may have a potential problem” as follows.

  Pattern 1: Current version Ver. In X-n, when the “problem occurrence node” is valid and the “input node”, “output node”, “input link”, and “output link” are valid, the information analysis unit 7 ver. The “problem occurrence node” in X-n is Ver. X is considered to be equivalent to the “problem occurrence node” in X, and Ver. Stores the “problem occurrence node” of Xn.

  Patterns 2 to 9: Current version Ver. In X-n, when the “problem occurrence node” is valid and one or both of “input link” and “output link” are invalid, the information analysis unit 7 ver. It is checked whether there is an information node that can substitute for the “input node” and “output node” in X, in other words, an equivalent information node (FIG. 6-2). Ver. Whether or not there is an information node equivalent to “input node” and “output node” in X can be checked by a method similar to the above-described method for checking a problem occurrence node.

  For example, Ver. When the “input link” in X is invalid, the information analysis unit 7 operates as follows. First, the information analysis unit 7 ver. Assume that the input node in (X-1) is a problem occurrence node. Next, the information analysis unit 7 ver. The input link, input node, output link, and output node in (X-1) are confirmed. Then, the information analysis unit 7 determines that a node equivalent to the assumed problem occurrence node is Ver. Whether or not it exists in X is checked based on the input link, input node, output link, and output node information. That is, an information node having the same input link, input node, output link, and output node as the assumed problem occurrence node is Ver. If it exists in X, the information analysis unit 7 determines that both are equivalent information nodes.

  If it exists, the information analysis unit 7 ver. The information node that can be substituted for “input node” and “output node” in X is regarded as an alternative “input node” and “output node”, and there is “a node that may have a potential problem”. Check again whether or not. That is, the process according to S105 is recursively executed.

  On the other hand, if it does not exist, the information analysis unit 7 determines that the current version Ver. In X-n, it is determined that there is no “node with a potential problem”.

  Patterns 10 to 13: Current version Ver. In X-n, when the “problem occurrence node” is invalid, the information analysis unit 7 determines that “a problem may exist” according to one of the patterns A, B, and C illustrated in FIG. Search for “node”. Typically, pattern A is tried first, then pattern B is tried, and pattern C is finally tried.

  Pattern A: The information analysis unit 7 reads the current version Ver. A related link starting from an “input node” valid in Xn and having the same type as “input link” is extracted.

  If there is an information node that is the end point of the extracted related link, the information node has a related link that starts from the information node, ends at the output node, and has the same type as the output link. The analysis unit 7 estimates the information node as “a node with a potential problem” and stores the information node in the problem occurrence node group.

  Pattern B: The information analysis unit 7 uses the current version Ver. A related link starting from an “input node” valid in Xn and having the same type as “input link” is extracted.

  In the case where there is a link that ends with “output node” among the extracted related links, the information analysis unit 7 estimates this “input node” as “a node with a potential problem”, Ver. Stores the “input node” in Xn.

  On the other hand, if none of the extracted related links has an “output node” as an end point, the information analysis unit 7 starts the information node for all the information nodes that are the end points of the extracted related link. And a related link having the same type as the “input link” is extracted. If any of the related links extracted here has an “output node” as an end point, the information analysis unit 7 estimates the information node as “a node with a potential problem”, The information node is stored in the problem node group.

  Pattern C: The information analysis unit 7 reads the current version Ver. A related link having an “output node” effective in Xn as an end point and the same type as “output link” is extracted.

  In the case where there is a link starting from the “input node” among the extracted related links, the information analysis unit 7 estimates the “output node” as “a node having a potential problem”, Ver. Stores “output node” in X-n.

  S106: The information analysis unit 7 performs the current version Ver. When “a node with a potential problem” is found in X-n, Ver. Also in X- (n + 1), a search is performed for a “node with a potential problem”. That is, the counter n is incremented and the current version is set to Ver. As X− (n + 1), the processes of S104 to S106 are repeatedly executed. This iteration continues until no “nodes with potential problems” are found in the current version.

  On the other hand, the current version Ver. If Xn does not find “a node with a potential problem”, the information analysis unit 7 outputs the information node stored in the problem-occurring node group to the output device 2 to output the user. The processing related to the influence range estimation function is terminated.

  Next, the procedure for the information analysis unit 7 to execute the influence range estimation function will be described more specifically using a specific example shown in FIG.

  FIG. 8A shows Ver. The status of information nodes and related links in X is shown. Information nodes A, B, D, E, G, H, and I are valid, and information node E is a “problem occurrence node”. Related links AB (same rank), AD (others), BE (detailed), DE (others), EH (others), GE (specification), and IH (specification) are effective. The type of related link is shown in parentheses. The information analysis unit 7 is Ver. These information nodes and related links related to the “problem occurrence node” in X are stored.

  8-2 shows Ver. An example of the state of the information node and related link in X-1 is shown. This example is called pattern a. In the pattern a, nodes A, B, D, F, G, H, and I are valid. Related links AB (same rank), AD (other), BF (detailed), DF (other), FH (other), GF (specific), and IH (specific) are effective.

First, the information analysis unit 7 ver. "Problem occurrence node E" existing in X. Ver. It is confirmed whether X-1 is also effective. In pattern a, Ver. There is no information node E in X-1. Therefore, the information analysis unit 7 is Ver. In X-1, a search is made for a “node with potential problem” equivalent to the information node E.
The information analysis unit 7 is Ver. “Input node” B, D, G and “output node” H in X. It is confirmed whether X-1 is also effective. In pattern a, Ver. In X-1, “input nodes” B, D, G, and “output node” H are all valid.

  First, the information analysis unit 7 ver. The relation links of the same type as “input links” BE (detailed), DE (others), and GE (materialized) starting from “input nodes” B, D, and G that are valid in X are Ver. In X-1, it is confirmed whether or not the input node B, D, G is not output. Then, related links BF (detailed), DF (others), and GF (concrete) are extracted. The information analysis unit 7 extracts the information node F that is the end point of these extracted related links.

  The information analysis unit 7 determines that the type and end point of the related link FH (others) starting from the extracted information node F are Ver. It is confirmed whether or not the type and end point of the “output link” EH (other) in X are the same (S105, pattern A processing). Since both are the same in this example, the information analysis unit 7 estimates the extracted information node F as “a node with a potential problem” equivalent to the “problem occurrence node”.

  Also, Ver. Check if there is a potential problem with the input and output nodes at X-1. The confirmation method is Ver. Confirm whether there is a potential problem in the input node and the output node by checking the link information between the input node and the output node in X or if there is a link type To do. In the pattern a, since link information does not exist between the input nodes B, D, and G and the output node H, it is determined that there is no possibility of a problem in the input node and the output node.

  The reason why such a determination can be made is as follows. Ver. (X-1) to Ver. If the problem is hidden in the input node due to the modification to X, in other words, if the problem moves from the problem node to the input node, the related link of the same type as the output link from the problem node to the output node Is set from the input node to the output node. If a problem has occurred in the output node, in other words, if the problem has moved from the problem node to the output node, the related link of the same type as the input link from the input node to the problem node is output from the input node. Set to the node.

  8-2 shows Ver. The other example of the state of the information node and related link in X-1 is shown. This example is called pattern b. In pattern b, nodes A, B, C, E, G, H, and I are valid. In addition, related links AB (equal), AC (other), BE (other), BH (detailed), CE (other), CH (other), GH (specific), and IH (specific) are effective. .

  The information analysis unit 7 is Ver. “Input node”, “Output node”, and “Problem occurrence node” in Ver. It is confirmed whether all of X-1 are effective. In pattern b, Ver. “Problem occurrence node” E, “input node” B, G, and “output node” H in X are also valid in VerX-1, but “input node” D is Ver. It is invalid in X-1. Also, Ver. C that is not the “input node” in X is Ver. In X-1, a valid relational link is input to the information node E. Therefore, Ver. The information node E in X-1 is Ver. It cannot be immediately estimated that it is equivalent to the “problem occurrence node” E in X.

  Therefore, the information analysis unit 7 ver. The information node E in X-1 is Ver. It is verified whether or not it can be said to be equivalent to the “problem occurrence node” E in X. The information analysis unit 7 is Ver. "Input nodes" B, D, and G in Ver. It is verified whether it can be said that it is equivalent to the information nodes B, C, and G inputting the relational link to the information node E in X-1.

  Specifically, Ver. "Input nodes" B, D, G in Ver. The start point, the end point, and the type of the related link set in the information nodes B, C, and G in X-1 are respectively compared, and any Ver. X "input node" and Ver. Check if the X-1 information node is equivalent.

  First, Ver. X-1 information node C and Ver. The “input node” D of X has the relation link AC or AD having the information node A as the starting point and the other type, and the relation link CE or DE having the information node E as the end point and the other type. Therefore, these are determined to be equivalent. That is, Ver. The information node D of X is Ver. It can be assumed that the information node C of X-1 is divided or integrated, or is generated as an alternative to the information node C.

  On the other hand, Ver. X and Ver. In order to compare it with each other in X-1, the start point, end point, and type of the related link are different. That is, Ver. The information node B in X has a relational link BE (refinement), whereas Ver. The information node B in X-1 has relational links BE (others) and BH (detailed). Also, Ver. The information node G in X has a relational link GE (materialization), whereas Ver. The information node B in X-1 has a related link GH (materialization). Therefore, the information analysis unit 7 is Ver. X in information nodes B and G, Ver. It is determined that the information nodes B and G in X-1 are not equivalent. Also, Ver. In X-1, in addition to the information nodes B and G, Ver. There is no information node equivalent to information nodes B and G in X.

  Therefore, the information analysis unit 7 ver. X "input node" and Ver. It is determined that the information node that inputs the related link to the information node E in X-1 is not equivalent. Therefore, Ver. The information node E in X-1 is Ver. It is presumed that it is not equivalent to the “problem occurrence node” E in X, that is, it is not a “node with a potential problem”.

  Next, the information analysis unit 7 checks whether there is a possibility of a problem in the “input node” or “output node”. In pattern b, Ver. There is a related link between “input node” and “output node” that was invalid in X. Here, when the related link information is confirmed, Ver. If the input link and the output link at X are the same, a problem may occur in the input node or the output node. In pattern b, Ver. Nodes B, D, and G, which are nodes equivalent to the input node at the time of X, Ver. The related link to the output node H at X is confirmed. At this time, the links from the nodes B, D, and G are Ver. X is a link of the same type as the related link between the problem occurrence node and the output node of X. Therefore, a part of the problem occurrence node is Ver. In (X-1), it can be estimated that it was included in the output node. Therefore, it is assumed that there may be a problem in the node H. For example, a link from node B, D, G to node H is Ver. If the link type is the same as that of the X input node-problem occurrence node, there may be a problem in each of the input nodes B, D, and G. In that case, Ver. When confirming (X-2), analysis / estimation processing is performed with each of the nodes B, D, and G as problem nodes.

  The information analysis unit 7 performs a series of these processes related to the influence range estimation function, and when “a node having a potential problem” exists, X is incremented to X−1 or X + 1 or As a decrement, that is, the above-described series of processing is repeated for the previous or next version one generation at a time. If a “node with potential problems” is not found in a certain version, the process related to the scope of influence estimation function is not executed for earlier or later versions. The node that may be hidden is presented to the user and the process is terminated.

  According to the present embodiment, the information analysis unit 7 determines whether a problem is latent in each version based only on information about the asset in which the problem occurred, the relationship link related to the asset, and the asset linked to the relationship link. Mechanically inferring assets that may be More specifically, in the version in which the problem occurred, information about the asset that had the potential problem, the relationship link related to the asset and the asset linked to the relationship link is stored, and other versions are stored. If the relationship link etc. for a certain asset and its asset is the same as or equivalent to the asset for which the problem has been memorized and the relationship link for that asset, etc., there is also a problem in the other version. Guess that it may be latent.

  Thereby, when a problem occurs in a certain version, it is possible to specify the range of versions having a high probability of occurrence of the same problem, that is, the affected range with high accuracy. Further, the time and labor required for these operations can be suppressed.

  In addition, this invention is not limited to the above-mentioned embodiment, Of course, it can change variously within the range of the meaning of this invention. For example, in the above-described embodiment, any configuration described as being based on hardware can be realized by causing a CPU (Central Processing Unit) to execute a computer program. In this case, the computer program can be stored and provided to the computer using various types of non-transitory computer readable media. Non-transitory computer readable media include various types of tangible storage media. Examples of non-transitory computer-readable media include magnetic recording media (for example, flexible disks, magnetic tapes, hard disk drives), magneto-optical recording media (for example, magneto-optical disks), CD-ROMs (Read Only Memory), CD-Rs, CD-R / W, semiconductor memory (for example, mask ROM, PROM (Programmable ROM), EPROM (Erasable PROM), flash ROM, RAM (Random Access Memory)). The program may also be supplied to the computer by various types of transitory computer readable media. Examples of transitory computer readable media include electrical signals, optical signals, and electromagnetic waves. The temporary computer-readable medium can supply the program to the computer via a wired communication path such as an electric wire and an optical fiber, or a wireless communication path.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 100 Software asset utilization apparatus 1 Input apparatus 2 Output apparatus 3 Processing apparatus 4 Repository 5 Information input part 6 Information extraction part 7 Information analysis part 8 Information holding part 9 Keyword holding part 10 Link table

Claims (10)

An asset management matrix in which information nodes, which are individual information units constituting a software asset, are arranged in blocks divided according to abstraction and detail, and relationships between information nodes are set by relationship links;
One or more version information,
A repository for holding information indicating whether each of the information node and the relational link is valid or invalid in each version information;
Enter the first information node that is valid in the first version information and has a problem,
One or more first relationship links that are valid in the first version information and associated with the first information node, and associated with the first information node by the first relationship link One or more second information nodes,
Comparing the first relational link and the second information node that are valid in second version information other than the first version information;
Result of the comparison, is effective in the second version information, and if said first information nodes and the third information nodes that will be evaluated as equivalent is found, the third information nodes, the first A software asset utilization apparatus comprising: an information analysis unit that estimates that the information node may have the problem in the version information of 2. The information analysis unit
If the first information node, the first relational link, and the second information node that are also valid in the first version information are all valid in the second version information, 1 information node, the third information node to the software asset utilization system according to claim 1 wherein the discovery. The information analysis unit
In the second version information, when the first information node is invalid,
The be effective in the second version information, and the structure of the relationship link is built between the second information node, the information node that will be evaluated as equivalent to the first relationship links the third information node to the software asset utilization system according to claim 1 wherein the discovery. The information analysis unit
In the second version information, when the first information node is invalid,
The structure of the relation link that is the second information node that is valid in the second version information and that is constructed with the other second information node is equivalent to the first relation link. said second information nodes that will be evaluated that, the third information node to be discovered claim 1 software asset utilization system according. The information analysis unit
In the second version information, when the first information node is valid and the second information node is invalid,
The be effective in the second version information, and the information node that will be evaluated as equivalent to other of said second information node, regarded as the second information node claims 1 to 4 any one The software asset utilization device described. The information analysis unit
The software asset according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein when the third information node is found, a search for further finding the third information node is executed for the different second version information. Utilization device. The information analysis unit
The software asset utilization apparatus according to claim 6, wherein when the third information node is not found, further estimation of the third information node is stopped. The software asset utilization device according to any one of claims 1 to 7, further comprising an output device that presents the discovered third information node to a user. An asset management matrix in which information nodes, which are individual information units constituting a software asset, are arranged in blocks divided according to abstraction and detail, and relationships between information nodes are set by relationship links;
One or more version information,
Holding each of the information node and the relational link is information indicating whether the version information is valid or invalid, and
Inputting a first information node that is valid in the first version information and has a problem;
One or more first relationship links that are valid in the first version information and associated with the first information node, and associated with the first information node by the first relationship link One or more second information nodes,
Comparing the first relationship link and the second information node that are valid in second version information other than the first version information;
Result of the comparison, is effective in the second version information, and if said first information nodes and the third information nodes that will be evaluated as equivalent is found, the third information nodes, the first And inferring that the information node is likely to have the problem in the version information of 2. The software asset utilization method.   A program for causing a computer to execute the software asset utilization method according to claim 9.

Images