A decade and more of UML: An overview of UML semantic and structural issues and UML field use

Journal of Database Management

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2008, Pages

  Erickson, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 50549087194     PISSN: 10638016     EISSN: 15338010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (34)

1. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (1999). The unified modeling language user guide. MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (2005). The unified modeling language user guide (2nd ed.). MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Chen, Y., Zhou, L., & Zhang, D. (2006). Ontology- supported Web service composition: An approach to service-oriented knowledge management in corporate services. Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 67-84.
4. 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.
5. Dobing, B., & Parsons, J. (2008). Dimensions of UML diagram use:A survey of practitioners. Journal of Database Management, 19(1), 1-18.
6. Erickson, J. (2008). Use of UML at an on-line securities trading company [Working paper]. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska-Omaha.
7. Erickson, J., & Siau, K. (2004). Toward practical measures of complexity in real-lime modeling methods. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems.
8. Erickson, J., & Siau, K. (2007a). Can UML be simplified? Practitioner use of UML in separate domains. Paper presented at Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD) 2007 Workshop, Trondheim, Norway.
9. Erickson, J., & Siau, K. (2007b). Theoretical and practical complexity of modeling methods. Communications of the ACM, 50(8), 46-51.
10. Erickson, J., & Siau, K. (2008). Web services, service oriented computing, and service oriented architecture: Separating hype from reality. Journal of Database Management, 19(3), 42-54.
11. Field, J., Heim, G., & Sinha, K. (2004). Managing quality in the e-service system: Development and application of a process model. Production and Operations Management, 13(4), 291-306.
12. Gemino,A., & Wand, Y. (2003). Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 79-84.
13. Kim, J., Hahn, J., & Hahn, H. (2000). How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research, 11(3), 284-303.
14. Lange, C. (2006). Improving the quality of UML models in practice. International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 993-996.
15. Li, S., Huang, S., Yen, D. C., & Chang, C. (2007). Migrating legacy information systems to Web services architecture. Journal of Database Management, 18(4), 1-25.
16. Mammar,A., & Laleau, R. (2006). UB2SQL:A tool for building database applications using UML and B formal method. Journal of Database Management, 17(4), 70-89.
17. Object Management Group (OMG). (2008). Retrieved, from http:// www.omg.org/mda/faq_mda.htm, on 1-14-2008
18. Opdahl, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002). Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Software and Systems Modeling, 1(1), 43-67.
19. Rossi, M., & Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Complexity metrics for systems development methods and techniques. Information Systems, 21(2), 209-227.
20. Shen, Z., & Siau, K. (2003). An empirical evaluation of UML notational elements using concept mapping approach. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Seattle, WA (pp. 194-206).
21. Siau, K., & Cao, Q. (2001). Unified modeling language (UML): A complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management, 12(1), 26-34.
22. Siau, K., Erickson, J., & Lee, L. (2002). Complexity of UML: Theoretical versus practical complexity. Workshop on Information Technology and Systems (WITS), Barcelona, Spain (pp. 7-12).
23. Siau, K., Erickson, J., & Lee, L. (2005). Theoretical vs practical complexity: The case of UML. Journal of Database Management, 16(3), 40-57.
24. 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.
25. Siau, K., & Loo, P. (2006). Identifying difficulties in learning UML. Information Systems Management, 23(3), 43-51.
26. Siau, K., & Tan, X. (2005). Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55(3), 343-365.
27. Siau, K., & Tan, X. (2006a). Cognitive mapping techniques for user-database interaction. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 49(2), 96-108.
28. Siau, K., & Tan, X. (2006b). Use of cognitive mapping techniques in information systems. Journal of Database Management, 17(3), i-iv.
29. Siau, K., & Tan, X. (2006c). Using cognitive mapping techniques to supplement UML and UP in information requirements determination. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(5), 59-66.
30. Siau, K., & Tian, Y. (2001, December 16-19). The complexity of unified modeling language:A GOMS analysis. In Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 01), New Orleans, LA (pp. 443-448).
31. Siau, K., & Tian, Y. (2002, December 14-15). Analyzing unified modeling language using GOMS. In Twelfth Workshop on Information Technology and Systems (WITS 02), Barcelona, Spain (pp. 7-12).
32. Siau, K., & Wang, Y. (2007). Cognitive evaluation of information modeling methods. Information and Software Technology, 49(5), 455-474.
33. Whittle, J. (2000). Formal approaches to systems analysis using UML: An overview. Journal of Database Management, 11(4), 4-13.
34. Yusuf, Kagdi, & Maletic. (2007). Assessing the comprehension of UML class diagrams via eye tracking. In Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC '07) (pp. 113-122).