Using practitioners for assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4802 LNCS, Issue , 2007, Pages 213-222

  Cruz Lemus, José A ^a   Genero, Marcela ^a   Morasca, Sandro ^b   Piattini, Mario ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA LA MANCHA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF INSUBRIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER GRAPHICS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; STUDENTS;

HIERARCHICAL MODELING; UML STATECHART MODELS;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 38349026932     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-76292-8_25     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model Driven Development: a Metamodeling Foundation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 36-41 (2003)
2. Basili, V., Shull, F., Lanubile, F.: Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25, 456-473 (1999)
3. Bolloju, N., Leung, F.S.K.: Assisting Novice Analysts in Developing Quality Conceptual Models with UML. Communications of the ACM 49(7), 108-112 (2006)
4. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Piattini, M.: Evaluating the Effect of Composite States on the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 113-125. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
5. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: Metrics for UML Statechart Diagrams. In: Genero, M., Piattini, M., Calero, C. (eds.) Metrics for Software Conceptual Models, Imperial College Press, UK (2005)
6. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Morasca, S.: Improving the Experimentation for Evaluating the Effect of Composite States on the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams. In: Proceedings of 5th ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 9-11 (2006)
7. Denger, C., Ciolkowski, M.: High Quality Statecharts through Tailored, Perspective-Based Inspections. In: Proceedings of 29th EUROMICRO Conference New Waves in System Architecture, Belek, Turkey, pp. 316-325 (2003)
8. Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is Used. Communications of the ACM 49(5), 109-113 (2006)
9. Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Can UML Be Simplified? Practitioner Use of UML in Separate Domains. In: EMMSAD 2007. Proceedings of Twelfth International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 89-98 (2007)
10. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Evaluating Modeling Techniques based on Models of Learning. Communications of the ACM 46(10), 79-84 (2003)
11. Ghezzi, C., Jazayeri, M., Mandrioli, D.: Fundamentals of Software Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)
12. Host, M., Regnell, B., Wohlin, C.: Using Students as Subjects - a Comparative Study of Students & Proffesionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment. In: EASE 2000. Proceedings of 4th Conference on Empirical Assessment & Evaluation in Software Engineering, Keele, UK, pp. 201-214 (2000)
13. Hu, Z., Shatz, S.M.: Explicit Modeling of Semantics Associated with Composite States in UML Statecharts. Automated Software Engineering 13(4), 423-467 (2006)
14. Juristo, N., Moreno, A.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2001)
15. 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)
16. Mayer, R.E.: Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)
17. OMG, UML 2.0 - 2nd Revised Submission, Object Management Group (2003)
18. Otero, M.C., Dolado, J.J.: Evaluation of the Comprehension of the Dynamic Modeling in UML. Information and Software Technology 46(1), 35-53 (2004)
19. Pigoski, T.: Practical Software Maintenance. Wiley Computer Publishing, New York, USA (1997)
20. Pressman, R.: Ingeniería del Software. McGraw-Hill, New York (1993)
21. Selic, B.: The Pragmatics of Model-Driven Development. IEEE Software 20(5), 19-25 (2003)
22. Sjoberg, D.I.K., Hannay, J.E., Hansen, O., Kampenes, V., Karahasanovic, A., Liborg, N.K., Rekdal, A.C.: A Survey of Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31 (9), 733-753 (2005)
23. Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)
24. SPSS, SPSS 12.0, Syntax Reference Guide, SPSS Inc.: Chicago, USA (2003)
25. Tichy, W.F.: Hints for Reviewing Empirical Work in Software Engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 5, 309-312 (2000)
26. Vereist, J.: The Influence of the Level of Abstraction on the Evovability of Conceptual Models of Information Systems. In: ISESE 2004. Proceedings of 3rd International Syposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Redondo Beach, USA, pp. 17-26 (2004)
27. Webb, K.: Xholon Digital Watch Project (2006)
28. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Hast, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: an Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2000)