Dimensions of UML diagram use: A survey of practitioners

Journal of Database Management

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-18

  Dobing, Brian ^a   Parsons, Jeffrey ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

^b MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

Author keywords

Class diagram; Software development; Survey; Unified modeling language (UML); Use case

Indexed keywords

MODELING LANGUAGES; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SURVEYING; SURVEYS;

CASE DESCRIPTION; CLASS DIAGRAMS; INDUSTRY STANDARDS; OBJECT-ORIENTED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS; SYSTEM DEVELOPERS; UML DIAGRAMS; USE CASE DIAGRAM;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 46749134961     PISSN: 10638016     EISSN: 15338010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jdm.2008010101     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ambler, S. (2002). Agile modeling: Effective practices for extreme programming and unified process. New York: John Wiley.
2. Arlow, J., & Neustadt I. (2004). Enterprise patterns and MDA: Building better software with archetype patterns and UML. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
3. Booch, G. (1994). Object-oriented analysis and design with applications (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
4. Booch, G. (1999). UML in Action. Communications of the ACM, 42(10), 26-28.
5. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (1999). The unified modeling language user guide. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
6. Brown, S., & Venkatesh, V. (2003). Bringing non-adopters along: The challenge facing the PC industry. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 76-80.
7. Burton-Jones, A., & Meso, P. (2006). Conceptualizing systems for understanding: An empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 101-114.
8. Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2003). Properties do not have properties: Investigating a questionable conceptual modeling practice. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and Design, St. John's, Canada.
9. Constantine, L.L., & Lockwood, L.A.D. (1999). Software for use. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Cook, S. (2000). The UML family: Profiles, prefaces, and packages. In Proceedings of UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1939, (pp. 255-264). Springer.
11. DeJong, J. (2006). Of different minds about modeling. SD Times, June 15. Retrieved from http://www.sdtimes.com/article/ special-20060615-02.html.
12. 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.
13. Dori, D. (2002). Why significant UML change is unlikely. Communications of the ACM, 45(11), 82-85.
14. Duddy, K. (2002). UML2 must enable a family of languages. Communications of the ACM, 45(11), 73-75.
15. Evermann, J., & Wand, Y. (2001a). Towards ontologically based semantics for UML constructs. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, (pp. 354-367). Yokohama, Japan.
16. Evermann, J., & Wand, Y. (2001b). An Ontological Examination of Object Interaction in Conceptual Modeling. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems, (91-96). New Orleans, Louisiana,
17. Evermann, J., & Wand, Y. (2006). Ontological modeling rules For UML: An empirical assessment. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(5) 14-29.
18. Grossman, M., Aronson, J., & McCarthy, R. (2005). Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community. Information and Software Technology, 47(6), 383-397.
19. Harel, D. (1987). Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8(3), 231-274.
20. Jacobson, I., Booch, G., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The unified software development process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21. Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., & Overgaard, G. (1992). Object-oriented software engineering: A use case driven approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22. Jacobson, I., Ericsson, M., & Jacobson, A. (1994). The object advantage: Business process reengineering with object technology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23. Johnson, R., & Hardgrave,B. (1999). Object-oriented methods: current practices and attitudes. Journal of Systems and Software, 48(1), 5-12.
24. Kobryn, C. (1999). UML 2001: A standardization odyssey. Communications of the ACM, 42(10), 29-37.
25. Kobryn, C. (2002). Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 107-110.
26. Larman, C. (2005). Applying UML and patterns: An introduction to object-oriented analysis and design and iterative development (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Moore, A. (2001). Extending UML to enable the definition and design of real-time embedded systems. Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 14(6), 4-9.
28. Odell, J., Van Dyke, P., & Bauer, B. (2000). Extending UML for agents. Proceedings of the Agent-Oriented Information Systems Workshop at the 17th National conference on Artficial Intelligence, (3-17). Austin, Texas,
29. Object Management Group. (2005). Unified modeling language: Superstructure, Version 2.0.Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/ technology/documents/formal/uml.htm.
30. Opdahl, A.L., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2001). Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology. Journal of Systems and Software, 57, 119-143.
31. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., & Lorensen, W. (1991). Object-oriented modeling and design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32. Schneider, G., & Winters, J. (2001). Applying use cases: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
33. Selonen, P., Koskimies, K., & Sakkinen, M. (2003). Transformations between UML diagrams. Journal of Database Management, 14(3), 37-55
34. Siau, K., & Cao, Q. (2001). Unified modeling language (UML) - a complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management, 12(1), 26-34.
35. Siau, K., & Cao, Q. (2002). How complex is the unified modeling language? Advanced Topics in Database Research, 1, 294-306.
36. Siau, K. Erickson, J., & Lee, L.Y. (2005). Theoretical vs. practical complexity: The case of UML. Journal of Database Management, 16(3), 40-57.
37. Stevens, P., & Pooley, R. (2000). Using UML: Software engineering with object and components. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
38. Zeichick, A. (2002). Modeling Usage Low; Developers Confused About UML 2.0, MDA, SD Times, July 15. Retrieved from http://www.sdtimes.com/article/story-20020715-03.html.