What Are the Used UML Diagram Constructs? A Document and Tool Analysis Study Covering Activity and Use Case Diagrams

  • Gianna Reggio
  • Maurizio LeottaEmail author
  • Filippo Ricca
  • Diego Clerissi
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 506)


UML offers a very large set of constructs for each of its diagram types, however many of them seem scarcely used or even their existence is not known. Here, we decided to present a precise view of the usage levels of the constructs of activity and use case diagrams by means of a document and tool analysis study, covering preliminarily: books, courses, tutorials, and tools about UML. Results of the study show that, among the 47 activity diagrams constructs, a large majority of them seem to be scarcely used, while, only nine result widely used, whereas only two of the nine constructs of the use case diagrams seem scarcely used. This work is part of a larger project aimed at investigating the usage level of the UML diagrams and their constructs, also by means of a personal opinion survey intended for UML users.


UML usage Survey Empirical study 


  1. 1.
    UML Revision Task Force: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, V2.4.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossman, M., Aronson, J.E., McCarthy, R.V.: Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47, 383–397 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Petre, M.: UML in practice. In: Proceedings of 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2013, pp. 722–731. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobson, I.: Taking the temperature of UML (2009).
  5. 5.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is used. Commun. ACM 49, 109–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F.: Who knows/uses what of the UML: a personal opinion survey. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 149–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seidewitz, E.: UML 2.5: Specification simplification. Presented at Third Biannual Workshop on Eclipse Open Source Software and OMG Open Specifications (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F., Clerissi, D.: What are the used UML diagrams? A preliminary survey. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling (EESSMod 2013), vol. 1078, pp. 3–12. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V., Neple, T.: Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development - a review of literature. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 1646–1669 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torchiano, M., Tomassetti, F., Ricca, F., Tiso, A., Reggio, G.: Relevance, benefits, and problems of software modelling and model driven techniques: a survey in the Italian industry. J. Syst. Softw. 86, 2110–2126 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scanniello, G., Gravino, C., Tortora, G.: Investigating the role of UML in the software modeling and maintenance - A preliminary industrial survey. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS, vol. 3, pp. 141–148. SciTePress (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Can UML be simplified? Practitioner use of UML in separate domains. In: Proceedings of 12th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2007), vol. 365, pp. 81–90. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Budgen, D., Burn, A.J., Brereton, O.P., Kitchenham, B.A., Pretorius, R.: Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review. Softw. Pract. Exper. 41, 363–392 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prior, L.F.: Document Analysis: The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills (2008) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley, New York (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torchiano, M., Penta, M.D., Ricca, F., Lucia, A.D., Lanubile, F.: Migration of information systems in the italian industry: a state of the practice survey. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 71–86 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.: Personal opinion surveys. In: Shull, F., Singer, J. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 63–92. Springer, London (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F., Astesiano, E.: Business process modelling: five styles and a method to choose the most suitable one. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling, EESSMod 2012, pp. 8:1–8:6. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leotta, M., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Astesiano, E.: Towards a lightweight model driven method for developing SOA systems using existing assets. In: Proceedings of 14th International Symposium on Web Systems Evolution, WSE 2012, pp. 51–60. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leotta, M., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Astesiano, E.: Building VECM-based systems with a model driven approach: an experience report. In: Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling (EESSMod 2011), vol. 785, pp. 38–47. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMG: Service oriented architecture Modeling Language (SoaML) Specification Version 1.0.1 (2012).
  22. 22.
    Di Cerbo, F., Dodero, G., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Scanniello, G.: Precise vs. ultra-light activity diagrams - an experimental assessment in the context of business process modelling. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds.) PROFES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6759, pp. 291–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Scanniello, G., Di Cerbo, F., Dodero, G.: A precise style for business process modelling: results from two controlled experiments. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 138–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F.: Precise is better than light a document analysis study about quality of business process models. In: Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering, EmpiRE 2011, pp. 61–68. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianna Reggio
    • 1
  • Maurizio Leotta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Filippo Ricca
    • 1
  • Diego Clerissi
    • 1
  1. 1.DIBRISUniversità di GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations