Quality and comprehension of UML interaction diagrams-an experimental comparison

UML (Unified Modeling Language) is a collection of somewhat overlapping modeling techniques, thus creating a difficulty in establishing practical guidelines for selecting the most suitable techniques for modeling OO artifacts. This is true mainly with respect to two types of interaction diagrams: Sequence and collaboration. Attempts have been made to evaluate the comprehensibility of these diagram types for various types of applications, but they did not address the issue of quality of diagrams created by analysts. This article reports the findings from a controlled experiment where both the comprehensibility and quality of the interaction diagrams were investigated in two application domains: management information systems (MIS) and real-time (RT) systems. Our results indicate that collaboration diagrams are easier to comprehend than sequence diagrams in RT systems, but there is no difference in comprehension of the two diagram types in MIS. Irrespective of the diagram type, it is easier to comprehend interaction diagrams of MIS than of RT systems. With respect to diagram quality, in the case of MIS, analysts create collaboration diagrams of better quality than sequence diagrams, but there is no significant difference in quality of diagrams created in RT systems. Irrespective of the diagram type, more correct diagrams are created in MIS applications than in RT applications.

[1]  Gregor Engels,et al.  UML Collaboration Diagrams and their Transformation to Java , 1999, International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language.

[2]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Entity-Relationship and Object-Oriented Data Modeling-an Experimental Comparison of Design Quality , 1997, Data Knowl. Eng..

[3]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Comprehension and quality of analysis specifications-a comparison of FOOM and OPM methodologies , 2005, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[4]  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..

[5]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Comparing data modeling formalisms , 1995, CACM.

[6]  Øystein Haugen,et al.  From MSC-2000 to UML 2.0 - The Future of Sequence Diagrams , 2001, SDL Forum.

[7]  J. R. G. Wood,et al.  A further exploration into information systems development: the evolution of Multiview2 , 1998, Inf. Technol. People.

[8]  강문설 [서평]「The Unified Modeling Language User Guide」 , 1999 .

[9]  E. Vance Wilson,et al.  Asynchronous health care communication , 2003, CACM.

[10]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  A survey of structured and object-oriented software specification methods and techniques , 1998, CSUR.

[11]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Where now for development methodologies? , 2003, CACM.

[12]  Leszek A. Maciaszek,et al.  Requirements analysis and system design: developing information systems with UML , 2001 .

[13]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Database schema design: an experimental comparison between normalization and information analysis , 1987, DATB.

[14]  José Javier Dolado,et al.  Evaluation of the comprehension of the dynamic modeling in UML , 2004, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[15]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Object-Oriented Modeling and Design , 1991, TOOLS.

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

[17]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  OO and EER Conceptual Schemas: A Comparison of User Comprehension , 1994 .

[18]  José Javier Dolado,et al.  An Initial Experimental Assessment of the Dynamic Modelling in UML , 2004, Empirical Software Engineering.

[19]  Rebecca Wirfs-Brock,et al.  Designing object-oriented software , 1990 .

[20]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Detecting defects in object-oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality , 1999, OOPSLA '99.

[21]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Effects of data model and task characteristics on designer performance: a laboratory study , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[22]  Massimo Felici,et al.  Software Engineering with Objects and Components , 2005 .

[23]  Leszek A. Maciaszek Requirements analysis and system design: developing information systems with UML , 2001 .

[24]  Perdita Stevens,et al.  Using UML - software engineering with objects and components, Second Edition , 2006, Addison Wesley object technology series.

[25]  Scott W. Ambler,et al.  The Elements of UML™ 2.0 Style: UML Sequence Diagrams , 2005 .

[26]  Chris Sauer,et al.  Technical Reviews: A Behaviorally Motivated Program of Research , 2022 .

[27]  Dov Dori,et al.  The Model Multiplicity Problem: Experimenting with Real-Time Specification Methods , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[28]  E. Minium,et al.  Elements of Statistical Reasoning , 1982 .

[29]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  Why Are Some Diagrams Easier to Work With? : Effects of Diagrammatic Representation on the Cognitive Integration Process of Systems Analysis and Design , 1999 .

[30]  Akhilesh Bajaj,et al.  COGEVAL: A Propositional Framework Based on Cognitive Theories To Evaluate Conceptual Models , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[31]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-oriented software engineering - a use case driven approach , 1993, TOOLS.

[32]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using Students as Subjects—A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment , 2000, Empirical Software Engineering.