Research Review: A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of UML Models

The quality of conceptual models directly affects the quality of the understanding of the application domain and the quality of the final software products that are ultimately based on them. This paper describes a systematic literature review SLR of peer-reviewed conference and journal articles published from 1997 through 2009 on the quality of conceptual models written in UML, undertaken to understand the state-of-the-art, and then identify any gaps in current research. Six digital libraries were searched, and 266 papers dealing specifically with the quality of UML models were identified and classified into five dimensions: type of model quality, type of evidence, type of research result, type of diagram, and research goal. The results indicate that most research focuses on semantic quality, with relatively little on semantic completeness; as such, this research examines new modeling methods vs. quality frameworks and metrics, as well as quality assurance vs. understanding quality issues. The results also indicate that more empirical research is needed to develop a theoretical understanding of conceptual model quality. The classification scheme developed in this paper can serve as a guide for both researchers and practitioners.

[1]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  A Systematic Review of Software Development Cost Estimation Studies , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

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

[3]  Dave A. Thomas,et al.  MDA: revenge of the modelers or UML utopia? , 2004, IEEE Software.

[4]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[5]  Amela Karahasanovic,et al.  A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[6]  Min-Jae Lee,et al.  Temporal Aggregation Using a Multidimensional Index , 2007, J. Database Manag..

[7]  Mehmet M. Dalkilic,et al.  A Measurement Ontology Generalizable for Emerging Domain Applications on the Semantic Web , 2007, J. Database Manag..

[8]  Jing Liu,et al.  Safety analysis of software product lines using state-based modeling , 2005, 16th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE'05).

[9]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The unified modeling language reference manual , 2010 .

[10]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  Comparing Goal Modelling Languages: An Experiment , 2007, REFSQ.

[11]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Improving Evidence about Software Technologies: A Look at Model-Based Testing , 2008, IEEE Software.

[12]  Philip Calvert,et al.  Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications , 2005 .

[13]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Generating Tests from UML Specifications , 1999, UML.

[14]  Keng Siau,et al.  Theoretical and practical complexity of modeling methods , 2007, CACM.

[15]  Sherif Sakr,et al.  Graph Data Management: Techniques and Applications , 2011, Graph Data Management.

[16]  Colin Atkinson,et al.  Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[17]  Jorge Horacio Doorn,et al.  Handbook of Research on Innovations in Database Technologies and Applications: Current and Future Trends , 2009 .

[18]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[19]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  A Realistic Empirical Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of UML in Software Maintenance , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[20]  Marcela Genero.  Metrics For Software Conceptual Models , 2005 .

[21]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[22]  Srinath Srinivasa,et al.  Data, Storage and Index Models for Graph Databases , 2011, Graph Data Management.

[23]  Marvin V. Zelkowitz,et al.  Experimental validation in software engineering , 1997, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[24]  Gultekin Ozsoyoglu,et al.  On estimators for aggregate relational algebra queries , 1997 .

[25]  José Francisco Aldana Montes,et al.  Integrity Issues in the Web: Beyond Distributed Databases , 2002, Database Integrity.

[26]  Bhuvan Unhelkar.  Verification and Validation for Quality of UML 2.0 Models , 2005 .

[27]  Ina Fourie.  Database Integrity: Challenges and Solutions , 2002 .

[28]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Towards a framework for conceptual modeling quality , 2005 .

[29]  Dimitri P. Bertsekas,et al.  Data Networks , 1986 .

[30]  Taxiarchis Botsis,et al.  Implementation of a Computerized System in an Oncology Unit , 2007, Int. J. Heal. Inf. Syst. Informatics.

[31]  Yangjun Chen,et al.  Building Signature-Trees on Path Signatures in Document Databases , 2003, Effective Databases for Text & Document Management.

[32]  Bran Selic,et al.  The Pragmatics of Model-Driven Development , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[33]  José Galindo,et al.  Handbook of Research on Fuzzy Information Processing in Databases , 2008, Handbook of Research on Fuzzy Information Processing in Databases.

[34]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering , 2006, ICSE.

[35]  Parastoo Mohagheghi,et al.  Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development - A review of literature , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[36]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  A Systematic Review of Software Development Cost Estimation Studies , 2007 .

[37]  David Budgen,et al.  A mapping study on empirical evidence related to the models and forms used in the uml , 2008, ESEM '08.

[38]  Robert L. Glass,et al.  Science and substance: a challenge to software engineers , 1994, IEEE Software.

[39]  Robert B. France,et al.  Repository for Model Driven Development (ReMoDD) , 2006, 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[40]  Marvin V. Zelkowitz,et al.  Experimental Validation of New Software Technology , 2003, Lecture Notes on Empirical Software Engineering.

[41]  Mario Piattini,et al.  A Survey of Metrics for UML Class Diagrams , 2005, J. Object Technol..

[42]  John S. Erickson.  Database Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (4 Volumes) , 2009, Database Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications.

[43]  Richard V. McCarthy,et al.  Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community , 2005, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[44]  Shirley Ann Becker.  A Practical Perspective on Data Quality Issues , 1998, J. Database Manag..

[45]  Martin Gogolla.  Unified Modeling Language , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[46]  Joseph Kee-Yin Ng,et al.  The Impact of Network Layer on the Deadline Assignment Strategies in Distributed Real-Time Database Systems , 1996 .

[47]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  COMPARING GOAL-MODELLING TOOLS WITH THE RE-TOOL EVALUATION APPROACH ∗ , 2006 .

[48]  Jan Recker,et al.  Ontology- Versus Pattern-Based Evaluation of Process Modeling Languages: A Comparison , 2007, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[49]  Srdjan Skrbic,et al.  Data Model of FRDB with Different Data Types and PFSQL , 2008, Handbook of Research on Fuzzy Information Processing in Databases.

[50]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[51]  Janice Singer,et al.  Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering , 2007 .

[52]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Quality in Conceptual Modeling - New Research Directions , 2002, ER.

[53]  José Ambrosio Toval Álvarez,et al.  A systematic review of UML model consistency management , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[54]  Barbara Kitchenham,et al.  Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews , 2004 .

[55]  John Krogstie,et al.  Integrating the understanding of quality in requirements specification and conceptual modeling , 1998, SOEN.

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