A semiotic analysis of unified modeling language graphical notations

Requirements Engineering

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 15-26

  Siau, Keng ^a   Tian, Yuhong ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Graphical notations; Modeling methods; Semiotics; Systems analysis and design; Unified modeling language

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SEMIOTICS; STANDARDIZATION; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

FORMAL SPECIFICATIONS; GRAPHICAL NOTATIONS; MODELING CONSTRUCTS; MODELING LANGUAGES; MODELING METHODS; OBJECT-ORIENTED SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN; THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS; UML MODELING;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 59749106747     PISSN: 09473602     EISSN: 1432010X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00766-008-0071-7     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Alemán J, Álvarez A (2001) Seamless formalizing the UML semantics through metamodeling. In: Siau K et al (eds) Unified modeling language: Systems analysis, design and development issues. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey
2. Andersen P (1990) A theory of computer semiotics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
3. Barjis J, Chong S, Dietz J, Liu K (2002) Development of agent-based e-commerce systems using semiotic approach and DEMO transaction concept. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 1(3):491-510
4. Barron T, Chiang R, Storey V (1999) A semiotics framework for information system classification and development. Decis Support Syst 25:1-17. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00088-8
5. Barthes R, Smith M, Knott R, Berger J, Alty J (1994) Minimizing conceptual baggage: Making choices about metaphor. In: People and Computers IX. HCI'94. Glasgow, August, pp 179-194
6. Batra D (2007) Cognitive complexity in data modeling: Causes and recommendations. Requir Eng 12(4):231-244. doi: 10.1007/s00766-006-0040-y
7. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (2005) The unified modeling language user guide, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, New York
8. Chandler D (2002) Semiotics for beginners. Available online at http:// www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html
9. Condon C, Perry M, O'Keefe R (2004) Denotation and connotation in the human-computer interface: The 'save as ...' command. Behav Inf Technol 23(1):21-31. doi: 10.1080/01449290310001637415
10. De Souza C (1993) The semiotic engineering of user interface languages. Int J Man Mach Stud 39(7):53-773
11. Desouza K, Hensgen T (2002) On information in organizations: An emergent information theory and semiotic framework. Emergence 4(3):95-114. doi: 10.1207/S15327000EM0403-07
12. Dobbing B, Parsons J (2008) Dimensions of UML diagram use: A survey of practitioners. J Database Manage 19(1):1-18
13. Dykman N, Griss M, Kessler R (1999) Nine suggestions for improving UML extensibility. In: UML'99 - the unified modeling language. 1723:236-248
14. Erickson J, Siau K (2007) Theoretical and practical complexity of modeling methods. Commun ACM 50(8):46-51. doi: 10.1145/1278201.1278205
15. Evermann J, Wand Y (2009) Ontology based object-oriented domain modeling: Representing behavior. J Database Manage 20(1):48-77
16. Fiske J (1982) Introduction to communications studies. Routledge, London
17. Fontoura M, de Lucena C (2001) Extending UML to improve the representation of design patterns. J Object Oriented Program 13(11):12-19
18. Galloway A (1997) Questionnaire design and analysis. Available online at http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~kate/qmcweb/qcont.htm
19. Gemino A, Parker D (2009) Use case diagrams in support of use case modeling: Deriving understanding from the picture. J Database Manage 20(1):1-24
20. Hensgen T, Desouza K, Evaristoc J, Kraft G (2003) Playing the "cyber terrorism game" towards a semiotic definition. Hum Syst Manage 22:51-61
21. Liu K (2004) Virtual, distributed and flexible organizations: Studies in organizational semiotics. Kluwer, Dordrecht
22. Liu K (2005) Requirement reengineering from legacy information systems using semiotics techniques. Syst Signs Actions Int J Commun Inf Technol Work 1(1):38-61
23. Liu K, Clarke R, Andersen P, Stamper R (2001) Information, organization and technology: Studies in organizational semiotics. Kluwer, Dordrecht
24. Liu K, Clarke R, Andersen P, Stamper R (2002) Organizational semiotics: evolving a science of information systems. Kluwer, Dordrecht
25. Loucopoulos P, Kadir WMNW (2008) BROOD: Business rules-driven object oriented design. J Database Manage 19(1):41-73
26. Mehler A, Clarke R (2002) Systemic functional hypertexts. An architecture for social semiotic hypertext systems. In: New directions in humanities computing. Proceedings of the 14th joint international conference of the association for literary and linguistic computing and the association for computers and the humanities (ALLC/ACH '02), July 24-28. University of Tübingen, Seiten, pp 68-69
27. Meziane F, Athanasakis N, Ananiadou S (2008) Generating natural language specifications from UML class diagrams. Requir Eng 13(1):1-18. doi: 10.1007/s00766-007-0054-0
28. Morris C (1946) Signs. Language and behavior. Prentice-Hall, New York
29. Nadin M (1981) The integrating function of the sign in Peirce's semiotic. In: Ketner KL, Ransdell JM, Eisele C, Fisch M, Hardwick C (eds) Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress, vol 23. pp 363-366
30. Nadin M (1997) Signs and system, in signs and systems. A semiotic introduction to systems design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
31. OMG (2003) OMG unified modeling language specification. Object Management Group, Version 1.5
32. Osgood C, George J, Percy H (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
33. Peirce C (1931) Collected writings (8 vols). In: Hartshorne C et al (eds) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p 58
34. Reinhartz-Berger I, Sturm A (2008) Enhancing UML models: A domain analysis approach. J Database Manage 19(1):74-94
35. Rossi M, Brinkkemper S (1996) Complexity metrics for systems development methods and techniques. Inf Syst 21(2):209-227
36. Shen Z, Siau K (2003) An empirical evaluation of UML notational elements using a concept mapping approach. In: Paper presented at the 2003 International Conference of Information System (ICIS 2003)
37. Siau K (1999) Information modeling and method engineering: A psychological perspective. J Database Manage 10(4):44-50
38. Siau K (2004) Informational and computational equivalence in comparing information modeling methods. J Database Manage 15(1):73-86
39. Siau K (2007) The future of information systems engineering. Requir Eng 12(4):199-202. doi: 10.1007/s00766-007-0059-8
40. Siau K, Cao Q (2001) Unified modeling language - a complexity analysis. J Database Manage 12(1):26-34
41. Siau K, Erickson J, Lee L (2005) Theoretical versus practical complexity: The case of UML. J Database Manage 16(3):40-57
42. 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. Requir Eng 9(4):229-237. doi: 10.1007/s00766-004-0203-7
43. Siau K, Loo P (2006) Identifying difficulties in learning UML. Inf Syst Manage 23(3):43-51
44. Siau K, Rossi M (2009) Systems analysis and design: Evaluation techniques for conceptual and data modeling methods. Inf Syst J
45. Siau K, Tan X (2005) Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data Knowl Eng 55(3):343-365. doi: 10.1016/ j.datak.2004.12.006
46. Siau K, Tan X (2006) Using cognitive mapping techniques to supplement UML and UP in information requirements determination. J Comput Inf Syst 46(5):59-66
47. Siau K, Tan X (2008) Use of cognitive mapping techniques in information systems development. J Comput Inf Syst 48:49-57
48. Siau K, Tian Y (2001) The complexity of unified modeling language - a GOMS analysis. Paper presented at the 2001 International Conference of Information System (ICIS 2001)
49. Siau K, Tian Y (2002) Analyzing unified modeling language using GOMS. Paper presented at the 12th Workshop on Information Technology and Systems. Barcelona, Spain
50. Siau K, Wang Y (2007) Cognitive evaluation of information modeling methods. Inf Softw Technol 49(5):455-474. doi: 10.1016/ j.infsof.2006.07.001
51. Simons H, Graham I (1999) 30 Things that go wrong in object modelling with UML 1.3. In: Kilov H et al (eds) Precise behavioral specification of businesses and systems. Kluwer, Dordrecht
52. Smolander K, Rossi M (2008) Conflicts, compromises, and political decisions: Methodological challenges of enterprise-wide E-business architecture creation. J Database Manage 19(1):19-40
53. Song X, Osterweil L (1992) Toward objective, systematic design-method comparisons. IEEE Softw 9(3):43-53. doi: 10.1109/52.136166
54. Stamper R (1996) Signs, norms, and information systems. In: Holmqvist B et al (eds) Signs at work. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin
55. Stamper R, Liu K, Hafkamp M, Ades Y (2000) Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations - a semiotic approach to information system design. Behav Inf Technol 19(1):15-27. doi: 10.1080/ 014492900118768
56. Underwood M (2003) Introductory models and basic concepts: Semiotics. Available on line at http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/ semiomean/semio1.html
57. VanderMeer D, Dutta K (2009) Applying learner-centered design principles to UML sequence diagrams. J Database Manage 20(1):25-47
58. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J Inf Syst 3(4):217-237
59. Zhang H, Kishore R, Ramesh R (2007) Semantics of the MibML conceptual modeling grammar: An ontological analysis using the Bunge-Wang-Weber framework. J Database Manage 18(1):1-19