Theoretical vs. practical complexity: The case of UML

Journal of Database Management

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 40-57

  Siau, Keng ^a   Erickson, John ^b   Lee, Lihyunn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognition; Complexity; Metrics; Unified modeling language

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SEMANTICS; STANDARDS;

COGNITION; COMPLEXITY; METRICS; OBJECT ORIENTED (OO) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML);

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES;

EID: 20744435614     PISSN: 10638016     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jdm.2005070103     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Albrecht, A.J., & Gaffney, J.E. (1983). Software function, source line of codes, and development effort prediction: A software science validation. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 19, 639-648.
2. Anderson, J. (1976). Language, memory and thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
4. Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Anderson, J., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Boehm, B.W. (1981). Software engineering economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7. Booch, G., Jacobson, I., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The unified modeling language user guide. Addison-Wesley.
8. Briand, L., Wüst, J., & Lounis, H. (1999). A comprehensive investigation of quality factors in object-oriented designs: An industrial case study. Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Software Engineering. Los Angeles, California.
9. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, P.S. (1988). Measure costs right: Make the right decisions. Harvard Business Review. 96-103.
10. Dobing, B., & Parsons, J. (2000). Understanding the role of use cases in UML: A review and research agenda. Journal of Database Management, 11(4), 28-36.
11. Ericsson, K., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Longterm working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211-245.
12. Kim, J., Hahn, J., & Hahn, H. (2000). How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research, 11, 384-303.
13. Kobryn, C. (2002). Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 107-110.
14. Mcleod, G., & Roeleveld, D. (2002). Method evaluation in practice: UML/ RUP vs. inspired method. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design.
15. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
16. Rossi, M., & Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Complexity metrics for systems development methods and techniques. Information Systems, 21(2), 209-227.
17. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G. (1999). The unified modeling language reference manual. Addison-Wesley.
18. Siau, K. (1999). Information modeling and method engineering: A psychological perspective. Journal of Database Management, 10(4), 44-50.
19. Siau, K. (2004). Informational and computational equivalence in comparing information modeling methods. Journal of Database Management, 75(1), 73-86.
20. Siau, K., & Cao, Q. (2001). Unified modeling language (UML) - A complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management, 12(1), 26-34.
21. Siau, K., & Lee, L. (2004). Are use case and class diagrams complementary in requirements analysis? An experimental study on use case and class diagrams in UML. Requirements Engineering, 9(4), 229-237.
22. Siau, K., & Loo, P. (2002). Difficulties in learning UML: A concept mapping analysis. Proceedings of the Seventh CAiSE/ IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design. Toronto, Canada, (pp. 102-108).
23. Siau, K., Erickson, J., & Lee, L. (2002). Complexity of UML: Theoretical versus practical complexity. Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on Information Technology and Systems. Barcelona, Spain, (pp. 13-18).
24. Siau, K., Wand, Y., & Benbasat, I. (1997). The relative importance of structural constraints and surface semantics in information modeling. Information Systems, 22(2, 3), 155-170.
25. Vessey, I., & Conger, S. (1994). Requirements specification: Learning object, process, and data methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 57(5),102-113.
26. Zendler, A., Pfeiffer, T., Eicks, M., & Lehner, F. (2001). Experimental comparison of coarse-grained concepts in UML, OML and TOS. Journal of Systems and Software, 57(1), 21-30.