近年來，隨著開放原始碼的普及，為了增進軟體生產的效率、縮短開發時程，程式開發者越來越傾向於找尋現存且適當的開放原始碼加以修改，以減少開發的時間與成本，因此成了一種新的網路服務─程式碼搜尋。現今有許多程式碼搜尋引擎提供使用者便利的管道來取得一些已經存在的類別或是架構所提供的應用程式介面 (Application Programming Interfaces, API)，希望藉此幫助開發者尋找更為有幫助的資料。然而透過搜尋引擎在網路上所找回的程式碼結果，往往不能符合程式開發者的需求，過多且複雜的程式碼檔案讓程式開發者難以理解導致程式開發者無法過濾所需，而無法快速的應用的資源。
因此，在本研究中針對程式碼搜尋提出一個改良的系統架構，首先針對Koders搜尋引擎經過適當的過濾步驟下載有關查詢的程式碼至儲存庫，下載的程式檔案透過程式碼的抽象語意樹(Abstract Syntax Tree)擷取出程式碼重要的API，即時的利用正規化Google距離(Normalized Google Distance)的概念算出與查詢的相關性並重新排序，另外利用程式的結構性以資料探勘的階層演算法進行分群將搜尋結果重新分群，最後在每一個群集上賦予具有語意的標籤，以利使用者在沒有相關專業背景的情況下也能過濾找到適當的群集快速開發應用。最後，本研究將使用查準率(Precision)和查全率(Recall)及案例的方式當作評估系統是否能提升搜尋結果品質的衡量指標，並且與其他相關的研究進行比較。

With the popularity of open source software, many people have the willing to share their projects via internet. In order to enhance the efficiency of software production, program developers try to search the existing open source software on the web. Therefore a new internet service, code search engine, emerged from the network. Although search engines provide a convenient way to assist developers to reuse the existing Application Programming Interfaces, the search results obtained from the search engines do not always satisfy the requirement of developers. Numerous and complex search results make developers hard to reuse the code quickly.
We proposed a system architecture which is able to solve the problem we mention above: First, we store the related data which is extracted from the search results of Koders in the local repository. Second, we convert every file into the abstract syntax tree format to get the structural data. Third, we cluster and compute every file’s normalized Google distance value through the structural data. And then we will re-rank the search results according to the Google distance value. Four, we will give some semantic tags to each cluster and hope it can help user to find the right cluster quickly.
Finally, we use precision and recall value as an index to evaluate the proposed system architecture’s performance about clustering. Furthermore, we also use a case to explain whether the proposed system architecture can effectively help developers to find the useful source code, and compare with related academic research.

參考文獻
中文部分
1. 洪菁憶(2008)‧循序探勘在軟體版本控制上的應用‧未發表的碩士論文‧中壢：中央大學資訊管理研究所。
2. 陳文華(1999) ‧應用資料倉儲系統建立CRM‧資訊與電腦，122-127。
3. 張智星‧資料分群與樣式辨認。
4. 廖虹雲(2005)‧利用資料探勘來預測顧客對不同產品類別之偏好程度‧未發表的碩士論文‧台中：朝陽科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
5. 廖振傑(2009)‧藉由資料探勘的排序方式提昇程式碼搜尋品質─以Koders為例‧第20屆 國際資訊管理學術研討會‧台北：世新大學。
6. 龔良民(1998) ‧衍生性群集分析方法之探定理論與應用‧未發表的碩士論文‧高雄：中山大學資訊管理研究所。
英文部分
7. Asako Ohno, & Hajime Murao (2007). Measuring Source Code Similarity Using Reference Vectors. ICIC International, ISSN 1349-4198.
8. Bajracharya, S., Ngo, T., Linstead, E., Dou, Y., Rigor, P., Baldi, P., & Lopes, C. (2006). Sourcerer: A search engine for open source code supporting structure-based search. In Proc. of OOPSLA’06 Companion, 25-26.
9. Berry, M. J. A., & Linoff, G. (1997). Data Mining Technique for Marketing. Sale, and Customer Support, Wiley Computer.
10. Cilibrasi, R.L., & Vitanyi, P.M.B. (2007). The Google Similarity Distance. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 370 – 383.
11. Day, W. H. E., & Edelsbrunner, H. (1984). Efficient algorithms for agglomerative hierarchical clustering methods. Journal of Classification. 7-24.
12. Dick Grune, Henri E. Bal, Ceriel J.H. Jacobs, & Koen G. Langendoen. (2004). Modern compiler Design. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 9-11.
13. Frawley, W. J., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Matheus, C. J. (1992). Knowledge discovery in databases: An overview. AI Magazine. 57-70.
14. Fayyad, U. Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. & P. Smyth (1996). The KDD Process for Extracting Useful Knowledge form Volumes of Data. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 27–34.
15. Grupe, F. H., & Owrang, M. M. (1995). Database Mining Discovering New Knowledge and Cooperative Advantage. Information System Management, 12(4), 26-30.
16. G. Valiente. (2002). Algorithms on Trees and Graphs. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
17. Holmes, R., & Murphy, G. C. (2005). Using structural context to recommend source code examples. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 117-125.
18. Holmes, R., Walker, R. J., & Murphy, G. C. (2006). Approximate structural context matching: An approach to recommend relevant examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 32(12), 958-970.
19. Jiawei, H., & Micheline, K. (2001). Data Mining：Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, 59-60.
20. Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2005). Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
21. Kawaguchi, S., Garg, P. K., Matsushita, M., & Inoue, K. (2003). Automatic categorization algorithm for evolvable software archive. International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, 6, 195-200.
22. Kawaguchi, S., Garg, P. K., Matsushita, M., & Inoue, K. (2004). MUDABlue: An Automatic Categorization System for Open Source Repositories. In Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (November 30 - December 03, 2004). APSEC. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 184-193.
23. Kuhn, A., Ducasse, S., and Gírba, T., “Semantic clustering: Identifying topics in source code.” Information and Software Technology (49:3), pp.230-243, 2007.
24. Linstead, E., Rigor, P., Bajracharya, S., Lopes, C., & Baldi, P. (2007). Mining concepts from code with probabilistic topic models. Proceedings of the twenty-second IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, November 05-09.
25. Lorigo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L., & Gay, G. (2006). The Influence of Task and Gender on Search and Evaluation Behavior Using Google. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1123-1131.
26. Mandelin, D., Xu, L., Bodik, R., and Kimelman, D. (2005). Jungloid mining: helping to navigate the API jungle. In Proc. of PLDI 2005, 48-61.
27. Rousidis, D., & Tjortjis, C. (2005). Clustering Data Retrieved from Java Source Code to Support Software Maintenance: A Case Study. Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 276-279.
28. Robert C. Martin, “UML Tutorial:Part 1 -- Class Diagrams.”
29. Sahavechaphan, N., & Claypool, K. (2006). XSnippet:Mining for sample code. In Proc. of OOPSLA, 413–430.
30. Steven P. Reiss (2009). Semantics-based code search. International Conference on Software Engineering, 243 – 253.
31. Thummalapenta, S., & Xie, T. (2007). PARSEWeb：A Programmer Assistant for Reusing Open Source Code on the Web. In Proc. of ASE 2007, 204-213.
32. Tobias S. & Abraham B. (2006). Detecting Similar Java Classes Using Tree Algorithms. International Conference on Software Engineering, 65 – 71.
33. Xie, T., & Pei, J. (2006). MAPO: Mining API usages from open source repositories. In Proc. of MSR’06, 54-57.
網頁資料
34. 自由軟體鑄造場(Open Source Software Foundry)‧2010年5月31日取自http://www.openfoundry.org/
35. 自由軟體入口‧2010年5月31日取自http://www.oss.org.tw/
36. Codase source code search engine‧2010年5月31日取自http://www.codase.com/
37. Google Code Search Engine ‧2010年5月31日取自http://www.google.com/codesearch/
38. Koders source code search engine ‧2010年5月31日取自http://www.koders.com/
39. Krugle source code search engine‧2010年5月31日取自http://www.krugle.org/
40. SourceForge.net: Open Source Software‧2010年5月31日取自http://sourceforge.net/
41. TIOBE software‧2010年5月31日取自http://www.tiobe.com/