Advertisement

Exploiting the Complementary Relationship between Use Case Models and Activity Diagrams for Developing Quality Requirements Specifications

  • Narasimha Bolloju
  • Sherry Xiaoyun Sun
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5232)

Abstract

Use case models and activity diagrams play an important role in the early stages of requirements engineering for systems development.  While use case descriptions represent requirements through a sequence of step descriptions in main scenario and alternate scenarios, activity diagrams are often used to connect different use cases and to represent flow of activities corresponding to steps in complex use cases.  In the latter type of usage, a complex use case description and the corresponding activity diagram represent a same set of requirements using two different types of artifacts. In such situations, it is necessary to minimize inconsistencies across the models represented by these artifacts and to enhance overall quality of the resulting models.  This paper reports the findings from an empirical study aimed at understanding quality dependencies between use case models and activity diagrams, and offers recommendations for developing these artifacts.

Keywords

Use case models activity diagrams quality requirements specifications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, R., Sinha, A.: Object-oriented modeling with UML: a study of developers’ perceptions. Communications of the ACM 46(9), 248–256 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambler, S.W.: UML 2 Activity Diagramming Guidelines, vol. 2008 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company, Redwood City (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bi, H., Zhao, J.: Applying Propositional Logic to Workflow Verification. Information Technology and Management 5(3), 293–318 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolloju, N., Leung, F.: Assisting Novice Analysts in Developing Quality Conceptual Models with UML. Communications for the ACM 49(7) (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is used. Communications of the ACM 49(5), 109–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: UML activity diagrams as a workflow specification language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ericsson, M.: Activity Diagrams: What They Are and How to Use Them, vol. 2008 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eshuis, R.: Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagrams. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 15(1), 1–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendling, J., Nüttgens, M.: EPC markup language (EPML): an XML-based interchange format for event-driven process chains (EPC). Information Systems and E-Business Management 4(3), 245–263 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nysetvold, A., Krogstie, J.: Assessing business processing modeling languages using a generic quality framework. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubinstein, D.: Standish Group Report: There’s Less Development Chaos Today. Software Development Times:20070301-20070301 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siau, K., Cao, Q.: Unified Modeling Language (UML) - A Complexity Analysis. Journal of Database Management 12(1), 26–34 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siau, K., Erickson, J., Lee, L.: Theoretical vs. Practical Complexity: The Case of UML. Journal of Database Management 16(3), 40–57 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling: A Research Agenda. Information Systems Research 13(4), 363–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Narasimha Bolloju
    • 1
  • Sherry Xiaoyun Sun
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsCity University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina

Personalised recommendations