Analyzing the Cognitive Difficulties for Developing and Using UML Class Diagrams for Domain Understanding

Developing and using conceptual models require modelers' cognitive efforts. To identify and analyze the cognitive difficulties of modelers in developing and using conceptual models, two laboratory studies were conducted using UML class diagram as a conceptual modeling technique. In the first study, two groups of modelers were trained to develop UML class diagrams, with only one group being trained to develop the diagrams using ontological rules. All these diagrams were then provided to a different set of modelers who used them to answer domain understanding tasks. It was found that modelers who used the ontological rules had less difficulty in developing the diagrams than those who didn't. Similarly, modelers who used the diagrams developed by the group trained with rules had less difficulty in performing problem solving tasks than the modelers who used the diagrams developed by the group without training. It was observed that the cognitive difficulties of the modelers of the first study were transferred to the modelers in the second study.

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

[2]  Dragan Milicev On the Semantics of Associations and Association Ends in UML , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[3]  P. Angeles Dictionary of Philosophy , 1981 .

[4]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Representing Classes of Things and Properties in General in Conceptual Modelling: An Empirical Evaluation , 2010, J. Database Manag..

[5]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Associations and Mutual Properties - An Experimental Assessment , 2008, AMCIS.

[6]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Use Case Diagrams in Support of Use Case Modeling: Deriving Understanding from the Picture , 2009, J. Database Manag..

[7]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modeling: Representing Behavior , 2009, J. Database Manag..

[8]  M. Bunge Treatise on basic philosophy , 1974 .

[9]  Barry Boehm,et al.  Top 10 list [software development] , 2001 .

[10]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  An Ontologically Well-Founded Profile for UML Conceptual Models , 2004, CAiSE.

[11]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontological Modeling Rules for UML: An Empirical Assessment , 2006, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[13]  Peter Fettke,et al.  How Conceptual Modeling Is Used , 2009, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Robert M. Fuller,et al.  The effects of data model representation method on task performance , 2010, Inf. Manag..

[15]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

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

[17]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Requirements specification: learning object, process, and data methodologies , 1994, CACM.

[18]  Yair Wand,et al.  Using Ontology Languages for Conceptual Modeling , 2010, J. Database Manag..

[19]  Iris Vessey,et al.  The Role of Cognitive Fit in the Relationship Between Software Comprehension and Modification , 2006, MIS Q..

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

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

[22]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  Jan Recker,et al.  The Effects of Content Presentation Format and User Characteristics on Novice Developers' Understanding of Process Models , 2011, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[25]  Ron Weber,et al.  Conceptual Modeling and Ontology: Possibilities and Pitfalls , 2003, J. Database Manag..

[26]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Conceptual Data Modelling: an empirical study of expert and novice data modellers , 1997, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  Dimensions of UML Diagram Use: A Survey of Practitioners , 2008, J. Database Manag..

[28]  Ron Weber,et al.  Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Geert Poels,et al.  Understanding Business Domain Models: The Effect of Recognizing Resource-Event-Agent Conceptual Modeling Structures , 2011, J. Database Manag..

[30]  Irit Hadar,et al.  Applying ontology-based rules to conceptual modeling: a reflection on modeling decision making , 2007, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Using Iconic Graphics in Entity-Relationship Diagrams: The Impact on Understanding , 2008, J. Database Manag..

[32]  Jeffrey Parsons An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representing Property Precedence on the Comprehension of Conceptual Schemas , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[33]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[34]  Marta Indulska,et al.  How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

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

[36]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation , 2008 .

[37]  Peter Meso,et al.  Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..