Advertisement

An Experimental Investigation of UML Modeling Conventions

  • Christian F. J. Lange
  • Bart DuBois
  • Michel R. V. Chaudron
  • Serge Demeyer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4199)

Abstract

Modelers tend to exploit the various degrees of freedom provided by the UML. The lack of uniformity and the large amount of defects contained in UML models result in miscommunication between different readers. To prevent these problems we propose modeling conventions, analogue to coding conventions for programming. This work reports on a controlled experiment to explore the effect of modeling conventions on defect density and modeling effort. 106 masters’ students participated over a six-weeks period. Our results indicate that decreased defect density is attainable at the cost of increased effort when using modeling conventions, and moreover, that this trade-off is increased if tool-support is provided. Additionally we report observations on the subjects’ adherence to and attitude towards modeling conventions. Our observations indicate that efficient integration of convention support in the modeling process, e.g. through training and seamless tool integration, forms a promising direction towards preventing defects.

Keywords

Defect Density Class Diagram Modeling Convention IEEE International Workshop IEEE Software 
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.
    SPSS, version 12.0, http://www.spss.com
  2. 2.
    Gentleware AG. Poseidon for UML, community edition, version 3.1, http://www.gentleware.com
  3. 3.
    Ambler, S.W.: The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric paradigm. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 528–532 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briand, L.C., Bunse, C., Daly, J.W.: A controlled experiment for evaluating quality guidelines on the maintainability of object-oriented designs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(6), 513–530 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coad, P., Yourdon, E.: Object Oriented Design, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conradi, R., Mohagheghi, P., Arif, T., Hedge, L.C., Bunde, G.A., Pedersen, A.: Object-oriented reading techniques for inspection of UML models – an industrial experiment. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2749, pp. 483–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2006), May 2006, pp. 381–390. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eichelberger, H.: Aesthetics of class diagrams. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis (VISSOFT 2002), pp. 23–31. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics, A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd edn. Thomson Computer Press (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software quality: The elusive target. IEEE Software 13(1), 12–21 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuzniarz, L., Staron, M., Wohlin, C.: An empirical study on using stereotypes to improve understanding of UML models. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC 2004), pp. 14–23. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lange, C.F.J.: Material of the modeling conventions experiment, http://www.win.tue.nl/~clange
  14. 14.
    Lange, C.F.J., DuBois, B., Chaudron, M.R.V., Demeyer, S.: Experimentally investigating the effectiveness and effort of modeling conventions for the UML. CS-Report 06-14, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lange, C.F.J., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Effects of defects in UML models - an experimental investigation. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2006), May 2006, pp. 401–411. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lange, C.F.J., Chaudron, M.R.V., Muskens, J.: In practice: UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Software 23(2), 40–46 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meerling: Methoden en technieken van psychologisch onderzoek, 4th edn., vol. 2, Boom, Meppel, The Netherlands (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language, Adopted Final Specification, Version 2.0, ptc/03-09-15 edition (December 2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Omam, P.W., Cook, C.R.: A taxonomy for programming style. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Computer Science Conference, pp. 244–250 (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Purchase, H.C., Allder, J.-A., Carrington, D.: Graph layout aesthetics in UML diagrams: User preferences. Journal of Graph Algoritms and Applications 6(3), 255–279 (2002)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slaughter, S.A., Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S.: Evaluating the cost of software quality. Communications of the ACM 41(8), 67–73 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlesson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering - An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wüst, J.: The software design metrics tool for the UML, version 1.3, http://www.sdmetrics.com

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian F. J. Lange
    • 1
  • Bart DuBois
    • 2
  • Michel R. V. Chaudron
    • 1
  • Serge Demeyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnische Universiteit EindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Lab On REengineering (LORE)University of AntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations