Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Requirements of API Documentation: A Case Study into Computer Vision Services

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2012.13728 v1 pith:HNEAPSV3 submitted 2020-12-26 cs.SE

Requirements of API Documentation: A Case Study into Computer Vision Services

classification cs.SE
keywords documentationartefactscomputerdevelopersservicessoftwarevisionapis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Using cloud-based computer vision services is gaining traction, where developers access AI-powered components through familiar RESTful APIs, not needing to orchestrate large training and inference infrastructures or curate/label training datasets. However, while these APIs seem familiar to use, their non-deterministic run-time behaviour and evolution is not adequately communicated to developers. Therefore, improving these services' API documentation is paramount-more extensive documentation facilitates the development process of intelligent software. In a prior study, we extracted 34 API documentation artefacts from 21 seminal works, devising a taxonomy of five key requirements to produce quality API documentation. We extend this study in two ways. Firstly, by surveying 104 developers of varying experience to understand what API documentation artefacts are of most value to practitioners. Secondly, identifying which of these highly-valued artefacts are or are not well-documented through a case study in the emerging computer vision service domain. We identify: (i) several gaps in the software engineering literature, where aspects of API documentation understanding is/is not extensively investigated; and (ii) where industry vendors (in contrast) document artefacts to better serve their end-developers. We provide a set of recommendations to enhance intelligent software documentation for both vendors and the wider research community.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.