Advertisement

Evaluating the Effect of Composite States on the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams

  • José A. Cruz-Lemus
  • Marcela Genero
  • M. Esperanza Manso
  • Mario Piattini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)

Abstract

UML statechart diagrams have become an important technique for describing the dynamic behavior of a software system. They are also a significant element of OO design, especially in code generation frameworks such as Model Driven Architecture (MDA). In previous works we have defined a set of metrics for evaluating structural properties of UML statechart diagrams and have validated them as early understandability indicators, through a family of controlled experiments. Those experiments have also revealed that the number of composite states had, apparently, no influence on the understandability of the diagrams. This fact seemed a bit suspicious to us and we decided to go a step further. So in this work we present a controlled experiment and a replication, focusing on the effect of composite states on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams. The results of the experiment confirm, to some extent, our intuition that the use of composite states improves the understandability of the diagrams, so long as the subjects of the experiment have had some previous experience in using them. There are educational implications here, as our results justify giving extra emphasis to the use of composite states in UML statechart diagrams in Software Engineering courses.

Keywords

Phone Call Composite State Object Management Group Dial Digit Model Drive Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Basili, V., Shull, F., Lanubile, F.: Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25, 456–473 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: Metrics for UML Statechart Diagrams. In: Genero, Piattini, Calero (eds.) Metrics for Software Conceptual Models, Imperial College Press, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Maes, A., Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Analyzing Data Extracted from a Family of Experiments for Evaluating UML Statechart Diagrams Understandability. Research Working Paper, University of Ghent (2005) (to appear)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denger, C., Ciolkowski, M.: High Quality Statecharts through Tailored. Perspective-Based Inspections. In: Proc. of 29th EUROMICRO Conference ”New Waves in System Architecture”, Belek, Turkey, pp. 316–325 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Theoretical and Practical Complexity of UML. In: Proc. of 10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, USA, pp. 1669–1674 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Höst, M., Regnell, B., Wohlin, C.: Using Students as Subjects - a Comparative Study of Students & Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment. In: Proc. of 4th Conference on Empirical Assessment & Evaluation in Software Engineering (EASE 2000), Keele, UK, pp. 201–214 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., Pickard, L., Jones, P., Hoaglin, D., El-Emam, K., Rosenberg, J.: Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(8), 721–734 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group: UML Revision Task Force. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, v.1.4. document formal/01-09-67 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group: MDA - The OMG Model Driven Architecture (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reynoso, L., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: Measuring OCL Expressions: An approach based on Cognitive Techniques. In: Genero, Piattini, Calero (eds.) Metrics for Software Conceptual Models, Imperial College Press, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selic, B.: The Pragmatics of Model-Driven Development. IEEE Software 20(5), 19–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    SPSS: SPSS 11.5, Syntax Reference Guide, Chicago, USA, SPSS Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas, D.: MDA: Revenge of the Modelers or UML Utopia? IEEE Software 21(3), 15–17 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verelst, J.: The Influence of the Level of Abstraction on the Evolvability of Conceptual Models of Information Systems. In: Proc. of 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2004), Redondo Beach, USA, pp. 17–26 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Hast, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: an Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • José A. Cruz-Lemus
    • 1
  • Marcela Genero
    • 1
  • M. Esperanza Manso
    • 2
  • Mario Piattini
    • 1
  1. 1.ALARCOS Research Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Castilla – La ManchaCiudad RealSpain
  2. 2.GIRO Research Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Valladolid, Campus Miguel Delibes, E.T.I.C.ValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations