Evaluation of the comprehension of the dynamic modeling in UML

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 35-53

  Otero, Mari Carmen ^a   Dolado, José Javier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

Author keywords

Dynamic modeling; Semantic comprehension; Split plot factorial design; Unified Modeling Language

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; STATISTICAL METHODS;

DYNAMIC MODELING; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML);

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES;

EID: 0346896448     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0950-5849(03)00108-3     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Basili V.R., Caldiera G., Rombach H.D. Goal question metric paradigm. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. vol. 1:1994;Wiley, New York. pp. 528-532.
2. Basili V., Shull F., Lanubile F. Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 25:(4):1999;. July/August.
3. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second ed. 1988;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
4. Eriksson H., Penker M. UML Toolkit. 1998;Wiley, New York.
5. Foster B.M., Kirk R.E. Sample size determination for split-plot factorial designs. Paper Presented at American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, August. 1994.
6. Fowler M., Scott K. UML Distilled: Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Second ed. 2000;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
7. Hahn J., Jinwoo K. Why are some diagrams easier to work with? Effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive integration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 6:(3):1999;181-213.
8. Höst M., Regnell B., Wohlin C. Using students as subjects - a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Software Engineering. 5:(3):2000;201-214. September.
9. ® Statistics and Graphics Guide. 2000;SAS Institute.
10. Kirk R.E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. 1995;Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, USA.
11. Kuehl R.O. Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. 2000;Duxbury Thomson Learning, California, USA.
12. M.A. Laguna, Sistema de Seguros, 2000, www.infor.uva.es/̃mlaguna/is2/is2.html, (last access: January 2000).
13. Laitenberger O., Atkinson C., Schlich M., El Emam K. An experimental comparison of reading techniques for defect detection in UML design documents. Journal of Systems and Software. 53:(2):2000;183-204. August.
14. Lorenz M., Kidd J. Object-Oriented Software Metrics. 1994;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
15. R.C. Martin, UML sequence diagrams, Engineering Notebook Column, C++ Report, 1998.
16. OMG, 'UML Notation Guide', UML 1.3 Specification, March 2000, www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/00-03-01, (last access: April 2001).
17. OMG, 'UML Notation Guide', UML 1.4 Specification, September 2001, www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/01-09-74, (last access: December 2002).
18. Otero M.C., Dolado J.J. An initial experimental assessment of the dynamic modeling in UML. Empirical Software Engineering. 7:(1):2002;27-47. March.
19. PASS 2002, Power analysis and sample size software from NCSS, 2002, www.ncss.com/pass.html, (last access: August 2002).
20. I. Porres, J. Lilius, Digital sound record: a case study on designing embedded systems using the UML notation, TUCS Technical Report 234, Turku Centre for Computer Science, 1999.
21. Purchase H.C., Allder J., Carrington D. User preference of graph layout aesthetics: a UML study. Proceedings of Graph Drawing: Eighth International Symposium GD 2000, LNCS 1984. 2001;5-18.
22. Rosenberg D., Scott K. Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML: A Practical Approach. 1999;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
23. A. Simons, I. Graham, Behavioral specifications of businesses and systems, 1999, www.oopsnl.ukc.ac.uk/Issuse35Autumn1998/, (last access: June 2000).
24. SPSS Advanced Statistics™ 7.5. 1997;SPSS Inc.
25. G.H. Travassos, Models and measures (product). Part II, 1999, http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall1999/cmsc735/, (last access: June 2000).
26. Travassos G.H., Shull F., Fredericks M., Basili V. Detecting defects in object oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality. ACM Sigplan Notices. 34:(10):1999;47-56.
27. G.H. Travassos, Requirements document for a parking garage control system, 2000, www.cs.umd.edu/projects/SoftEng/ESEG/manual/OORT_package/OORT/, (last access: June 2000).
28. Winer B.J., Brown D.R., Michels K.M. Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology. Third ed. 1991.
29. Wohlin C., Runeson P., Höst M., Ohlsson M.C., Regnell B., Wesslén A. Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. 2000;Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
30. Zendler A., Pfeiffer T., Eicks M., Lehner F. Experimental comparison of coarse-grained concepts in UML, OML and TOS. Journal of Systems and Software. 57:(1):2001;21-30. April.