A Systematic Literature Review of Applications of the Physics of Notations

INTRODUCTION: The Physics of Notations (PoN) is a theory for the design of cognitively effective visual notations, emphasizing the need for design grounded in objective and verifiable rationale. Although increasingly applied, no systematic analysis of PoN applications has yet been performed to assess the theory's efficacy in practice. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the scope and verifiability of PoN applications. METHOD: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of peer-reviewed PoN applications. We analyzed what visual notations have been evaluated and designed using the PoN, for what reasons, to what degree applications consider requirements of their notation's users, and how verifiable these applications are. RESULTS: Seventy PoN applications were analyzed. We found major differences between applications evaluating existing notations and applications designing new notations. Particularly, in the case of new notations, we found that most applications adopted the PoN with little critical thought towards it, rarely considered its suitability for a particular context, and typically treated and discussed the PoN with few, if any, verifiable details and data. CONCLUSION: The results warrant consideration for those applying the PoN to do so carefully, and show the need for additional means to guide designers in systematically applying the PoN.

[1]  L. Cummings Argument from Authority , 2015 .

[2]  Jane Cleland-Huang,et al.  A visual language for modeling and executing traceability queries , 2012, Software & Systems Modeling.

[3]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  PoN-S: A Systematic Approach for Applying the Physics of Notation (PoN) , 2016, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[4]  Flávia Maria Santoro,et al.  A notation for Knowledge-Intensive Processes , 2013, Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD).

[5]  Xavier Le Pallec,et al.  Enhancing the communication value of UML models with graphical layers , 2015, 2015 ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS).

[6]  Sajid Anwer,et al.  An Evaluation of the Statechart Diagrams Visual Syntax , 2014, 2014 International Conference on Information Science & Applications (ICISA).

[7]  Thierry Nodenot,et al.  A visual programming language for designing interactions embedded in web-based geographic applications , 2012, IUI '12.

[8]  John Krogstie,et al.  Implementation and First Evaluation of a Molecular Modeling Language , 2015, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[9]  Gustavo Rossi,et al.  WebSpec: a visual language for specifying interaction and navigation requirements in web applications , 2011, Requirements Engineering.

[10]  Esperanza Marcos,et al.  Enabling the Development of Cognitive Effective Visual DSLs , 2014, MoDELS.

[11]  Michael Derntl,et al.  The Impact of Perceived Cognitive Effectiveness on Perceived Usefulness of Visual Conceptual Modeling Languages , 2011, ER.

[12]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  A visual language for modeling multiple perspectives of business process compliance rules , 2017, Software & Systems Modeling.

[13]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the UCM visual notation , 2010, SAM'10.

[14]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications , 2009 .

[15]  Jan Mendling,et al.  The Effect Of Process Map Design Quality On Process Management Success , 2013, ECIS.

[16]  Jian Liu,et al.  A domain-specific visual modeling language for testing environment emulation , 2016, 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[17]  Heinrich C. Mayr,et al.  Conceptual Modeling for Ambient Assistance , 2013, ER.

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

[19]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A tertiary study , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[20]  Abdulaziz S. Algablan,et al.  A visual syntax for Larman's operation contracts , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Engineering & MIS (ICEMIS).

[21]  Kurt Sandkuhl,et al.  Selecting the "Right" Notation for Business Process Modeling: Experiences from an Industrial Case , 2015, BIR.

[22]  Pascal Hirmer,et al.  A situation-aware workflow modelling extension , 2015, iiWAS.

[23]  Paolo Giorgini,et al.  Designing secure business processes with SecBPMN , 2015, Software & Systems Modeling.

[24]  Rachel K. E. Bellamy,et al.  Using the “Physics” of notations to analyze a visual representation of business decision modeling , 2012, 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[25]  Werner Esswein,et al.  Systemizing Colour for Conceptual Modeling , 2017, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[26]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Diagram Notations for Mobile Work Processes , 2011, PoEM.

[27]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Enhancing understandability of process models through cultural-dependent color adjustments , 2016, Decis. Support Syst..

[28]  Tom Mens,et al.  GISMO: a domain-specific modelling language for executable prototyping of gestural interaction , 2015, EICS.

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

[30]  João Araújo,et al.  Towards Security Modeling of e-Voting Systems , 2016, 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW).

[31]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation , 2010, Requirements Engineering.

[32]  Ketil Stølen,et al.  Design Decisions in the Development of a Graphical Language for Risk-Driven Security Testing , 2016, RISK.

[33]  Andrew Fish,et al.  How to visualise a conversation: case-based reasoning approach , 2014 .

[34]  Mario A. Bochicchio,et al.  SARA: A tool for service levels — Aware contracts , 2013, 2013 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2013).

[35]  Jan Mendling,et al.  An Explorative Analysis of the Notational Characteristics of the Decision Model and Notation (DMN) , 2016, 2016 IEEE 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW).

[36]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[37]  Alain Wegmann,et al.  Using the Physics of Notations Theory to Evaluate the Visual Notation of SEAM , 2014, 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on Business Informatics.

[38]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  Zdena Dobesova,et al.  USING THE PHYSICS OF NOTATION TO ANALYSE MODELBUILDER DIAGRAMS , 2013 .

[40]  Ileana Ober,et al.  HPCML: a modeling language dedicated to high-performance scientific computing , 2012, MDHPCL '12.

[41]  John G. Hosking,et al.  Ruru: A spatial and interactive visual programming language for novice robot programming , 2011, 2011 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[42]  Michael Derntl,et al.  Cognitive effectiveness of visual instructional design languages , 2010, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[43]  Robertas Damasevicius,et al.  Design of Visual Language Syntax for Robot Programming Domain , 2013, ICIST.

[44]  Enrique Martínez,et al.  A Model for Visual Specification of E-contracts , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing.

[45]  Rabih Bashroush,et al.  Modelling large-scale information systems using ADLs - An industrial experience report , 2015, J. Syst. Softw..

[46]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Semiotic Considerations for the Design of an Agent-Oriented Modelling Language , 2012, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[47]  Klaus-Dieter Schewe,et al.  Deontic BPMN: a powerful extension of BPMN with a trusted model transformation , 2013, Software & Systems Modeling.

[48]  Haralambos Mouratidis,et al.  Syntactic and Semantic Extensions to Secure Tropos to Support Security Risk Management , 2012, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[49]  María Gómez,et al.  User Interface Transition Diagrams for customer-developer communication improvement in software development projects , 2013, J. Syst. Softw..

[50]  Mohamed El-Attar,et al.  A scientific evaluation of the misuse case diagrams visual syntax , 2015, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[51]  Adam Steele,et al.  A Taxonomy and Visual Notation for Modeling Globally Distributed Requirements Engineering Projects , 2010, 2010 5th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering.

[52]  Angela Carrillo Ramos,et al.  Towards a Domain-Specific Language to Design Adaptive Software: the DMLAS Approach , 2016 .

[53]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Exploring alternative designs for sociotechnical systems , 2014, 2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS).

[54]  G. Barkdoll,et al.  "Evaluating the Evaluators" , 1978, Evaluation & the health professions.

[55]  Jan Van den Bergh,et al.  CAP3: context-sensitive abstract user interface specification , 2011, EICS '11.

[56]  Mario E. Sánchez,et al.  Visual Analysis of Enterprise Models , 2012, 2012 IEEE 16th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops.

[57]  Dirk van der Linden,et al.  User Involvement in Applications of the PoN , 2016, CAiSE Workshops.

[58]  John Grundy,et al.  SecDSVL: A Domain-Specific Visual Language to Support Enterprise Security Modelling , 2014, 2014 23rd Australian Software Engineering Conference.

[59]  Geert Poels,et al.  The Development and Experimental Evaluation of a Focused Business Model Representation , 2015, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[60]  Dirk van der Linden,et al.  A Framework for Improving the Verifiability of Visual Notation Design Grounded in the Physics of Notations , 2017, 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[61]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UMLFamily of Diagrams , 2009, SLE.

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

[63]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using students as subjects - an empirical evaluation , 2008, ESEM '08.

[64]  Geert Poels,et al.  Realizing strategic fit within the business architecture: the design of a Process-Goal Alignment modeling and analysis technique , 2019, Software & Systems Modeling.

[65]  Brian Berenbach,et al.  Towards a unified Requirements Modeling Language , 2010, 2010 Fifth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization.

[66]  Tom DeMarco,et al.  Structured Analysis and System Specification , 1978 .

[67]  John Grundy,et al.  A suite of visual languages for model-driven development of statistical surveys and services , 2015, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing.

[68]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Visual language theory: towards a human computer interaction perspective , 1998 .

[69]  Nadine Mandran,et al.  Evaluating the appropriateness of the BPMN 2.0 standard for modeling service choreographies: using an extended quality framework , 2014, Software & Systems Modeling.

[70]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Novel Framework for Visualizing Declarative Process Models , 2016, ZEUS.

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

[72]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[73]  Stefan Strohmeier,et al.  Conceptual Modeling in Human Resource Management: A Design Research Approach , 2017, AIS Trans. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[74]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  A Domain-specific Modelling Language for Clinical Pathways in the Realm of Multi-perspective Hospital Modelling , 2015, ECIS.

[75]  Dirk van der Linden,et al.  How Cognitively Effective is a Visual Notation? On the Inherent Difficulty of Operationalizing the Physics of Notations , 2016, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[76]  Kurt Sandkuhl,et al.  Component-Based Method Development: An Experience Report , 2014, PoEM.

[77]  Birgit Vogel-Heuser,et al.  Evaluation of a graphical modeling language for the specification of manufacturing execution systems , 2012, Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 17th International Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA 2012).

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

[79]  Monika Malinova A Language for Process Map Design , 2014, Business Process Management Workshops.

[80]  Flávia Maria Santoro,et al.  Towards a context-based representation of the dynamicity perspective in knowledge-intensive processes , 2015, 2015 IEEE 19th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD).

[81]  Tom De Marco,et al.  Structured Analysis And System Specification , 2015 .

[82]  John Krogstie,et al.  Visually Capturing Usage Context in BPMN by Small Adaptations of Diagram Notation , 2013, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[83]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG) , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[84]  Mohamed El-Attar,et al.  Empirical validating the cognitive effectiveness of a new feature diagrams visual syntax , 2016, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[85]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[86]  Uwe Aßmann,et al.  FRaMED: full-fledge role modeling editor (tool demo) , 2016, SLE.

[87]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation , 2010, SLE.

[88]  Jivka Ovtcharova,et al.  A Visual Language for the Collaborative Visualization of Integrated Conceptual Models in Product Development Scenarios , 2013 .

[89]  Wouter Joosen,et al.  MASC: Modelling Architectural Security Concerns , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 7th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering.

[90]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Toward Advanced Visualization Techniques for Conceptual Modeling , 2015, CAiSE Forum.

[91]  Marco Brambilla,et al.  Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the WebML visual notation , 2017, Software & Systems Modeling.

[92]  John Krogstie,et al.  Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[93]  Xin Huang,et al.  A Map of Threats to Validity of Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering , 2016, 2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC).

[94]  Ken Peffers,et al.  Towards a More Cognitively Effective Business Process Notation for Requirements Engineering , 2014, DESRIST.

[95]  Andreas L. Opdahl,et al.  Extending the UML Statecharts Notation to Model Security Aspects , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[96]  Xavier Le Pallec,et al.  A Model-based Approach for Engineering Multimodal Mobile Interactions , 2014, MoMM.

[97]  Paul A. Fishwick,et al.  Prototyping an analog computing representation of predator prey dynamics , 2014, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference 2014.

[98]  Zdena Dobesova VISUAL LANGUAGE FOR GEODATABASE DESIGN , 2013 .

[99]  Nikolay Mehandjiev,et al.  Design of a Suite of Visual Languages for Supply Chain Specification , 2010, 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing.

[100]  Lindsay Vickery Notational semantics in music visualisation and notation , 2014 .

[101]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[102]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Towards the Consolidation of a Diagramming Suite for Agent-Oriented Modelling Languages , 2013 .

[103]  Oliver Kopp,et al.  Vino4TOSCA: A Visual Notation for Application Topologies Based on TOSCA , 2012, OTM Conferences.

[104]  João Araújo,et al.  SnapMind: A framework to support consistency and validation of model-based requirements in agile development , 2014, 2014 IEEE 4th International Model-Driven Requirements Engineering Workshop (MoDRE).

[105]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating and Improving the Visualisation of CHOOSE, an Enterprise Architecture Approach for SMEs , 2014, PoEM.

[106]  Michalis Famelis,et al.  MAV-Vis: A notation for model uncertainty , 2013, 2013 5th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MiSE).

[107]  Andrew Fish,et al.  Towards an Operationalization of the "Physics of Notations" for the Analysis of Visual Languages , 2013, MoDELS.

[108]  Steve Hitchman,et al.  The Details of Conceptual Modelling Notations are Important - A Comparison of Relationship Normative Language , 2002, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[109]  Mario A. Bochicchio,et al.  Modeling Service Contracts Composition, Management and Visualization with tree graphs: Ma.Vi.C. , 2014, MEDES.

[110]  Aaron J. Quigley,et al.  Jeeves - A visual programming environment for mobile experience sampling , 2015, 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[111]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Multi-objective risk analysis with goal models , 2016, 2016 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS).