Ontological Modeling Rules for UML: An Empirical Assessment

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is widely accepted as the de-facto standard for object-oriented information systems (IS) design and software modeling. Recent research has proposed to extend the use of UML to conceptual modeling of application domains. Conceptual models serve both as the basis for communication and domain understanding among analysts, and as the starting point for IS software design. Prior research has proposed a set of modeling rules to provide the analyst or modeler with guidelines for using UML for conceptual modeling. This paper provides an empirical assessment of the benefits derived from using these modeling rules. Using an experimental study involving 53 subjects, it examines the effects of different levels of modeling rule application on application domain understanding. The results show statistically significant differences in the level of domain understanding that was derived from the various models.

[1]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[2]  J. Bergeron,et al.  Models of Understanding. , 1983 .

[3]  Keng Siau,et al.  Identifying Difficulties in Learning Uml , 2006, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[4]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[5]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..

[6]  Reinhard Schütte,et al.  The Guidelines of Modeling - An Approach to Enhance the Quality in Information Models , 1998, ER.

[7]  Joerg Evermann.  Thinking Ontologically – Conceptual versus Design Models in UML , 2022 .

[8]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning , 2003, CACM.

[9]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  Effects of Local Versus Global Schema Diagrams on Verification and Communication in Conceptual Data Modeling , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Ellen M. Hufnagel,et al.  User Response Data: The Potential for Errors and Biases , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Keng Siau,et al.  Unified Modeling Language: A Complexity Analysis , 2001, J. Database Manag..

[12]  Michael Jackson,et al.  The World and the Machine , 1995, 1995 17th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[13]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Comparing relationships in conceptual modeling: mapping to semantic classifications , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[14]  Akhilesh Bajaj,et al.  The effect of the number of concepts on the readability of schemas: an empirical study with data models , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[15]  Keng Siau.  Information Modeling and Method Engineering: A Psychological Perspective , 1999, J. Database Manag..

[16]  Peter Meso,et al.  How Good Are These UML Diagrams? An Empirical Test of the Wand and Weber Good Decomposition Model , 2002, ICIS.

[17]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts , 2005, Requirements Engineering.

[18]  Allan Collins,et al.  Facilitating retrieval from semantic memory: The effect of repeating part of an inference , 1970 .

[19]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  How Do We Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  Keng Siau,et al.  Theoretical vs. Practical Complexity: The Case of UML , 2005, J. Database Manag..

[21]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Towards Ontologically Based Semantics for UML Constructs , 2001, ER.

[22]  M. L. Gibson,et al.  Students as Surrogates for Managers in a Decision-Making Environment: An Experimental Study , 1991, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[23]  A. D. Ritchie.  The Dictionary of Philosophy , 1945, Nature.

[24]  Keng Siau,et al.  Are use case and class diagrams complementary in requirements analysis? An experimental study on use case and class diagrams in UML , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[25]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[26]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Relative Importance of Structural Constraints and Surface Semantics in Information Modeling , 1997, Inf. Syst..

[27]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[28]  Ray Offen.  Domain Understanding is the Key to Successful System Development , 2002, Requirements Engineering.

[29]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[30]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Comparing representations with relational and EER models , 1990, Commun. ACM.

[31]  Yair Wand,et al.  Using objects for systems analysis , 1997, CACM.

[32]  Michel Patry,et al.  An Evaluation of Inter-Organizational Workflow Modeling Formalisms , 2002 .

[33]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[34]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Human Factors Research on Data Modeling: A Review of Prior Research, An Extended Framework and Future Research Directions , 2002, J. Database Manag..

[35]  Keng Siau,et al.  Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods , 2004, J. Database Manag..

[36]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Reviewing software diagrams: a cognitive study , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[37]  Andrew C. Gemino.  Empirical comparisons of system analysis modeling techniques , 1999 .

[38]  Ron Weber,et al.  Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[39]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Meaningful modeling: what's the semantics of "semantics"? , 2004, Computer.

[40]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Understanding and Controlling Software Costs , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[41]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Toward formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[42]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  How UML is used , 2006, CACM.

[43]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[44]  Keng Siau,et al.  ANALYZING UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGEUSING CONCEPT MAPPING , 2002 .

[45]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effect of Multimedia on Perceived Equivocality and Perceived Usefulness of Information Systems , 2000, MIS Q..

[46]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling , 1999, TODS.

[47]  Edward Yourdon,et al.  Modern structured analysis , 1989 .

[48]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontological Evaluation , 2000, Inf. Syst..

[49]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  Enforcing Ontological Rules in UML-Based Conceptual Modeling: Principles and Implementation , 2005, EMMSAD.

[50]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[51]  Neil Iscoe,et al.  Domain modeling for software engineering , 1991, [1991 Proceedings] 13th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[52]  Michael Jackson,et al.  Principles of program design , 1975 .

[53]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[54]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .