Use case diagrams in support of use case modeling: Deriving understanding from the picture

Journal of Database Management

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-24

  Gemino, Andrew ^a   Parker, Drew ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conceptual modeling; System analysis; Unified modeling language (UML); Use case modeling

Indexed keywords

MODELING LANGUAGES; PROBLEM SOLVING; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

COGNITIVE THEORY OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; NOVICE USER; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN; USE CASE DIAGRAM; USE CASE MODEL; VISUAL CUES; VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 59849125957     PISSN: 10638016     EISSN: 15338010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jdm.2009010101     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Agarwal, R., De, P., & Sinha, A.P. (2003). Object oriented modeling with UML: A study of developer perceptions. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 248-256.
2. Angioni, M., Carboni, D., Pinna, S., Sanna, R., Serra, N. & Soro, A. (2006). Integrating XP project management in development environments. Journal of Systems Architecture, 52(11), 619-626.
3. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
4. Batra, D. (2008). Unified Modeling Language (UML) topics: The past, the problems, and the prospects. Guest editorial preface. Journal of Database Management, 19(1), i-vii.
5. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., & Weber, R. (2001). Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 384-405.
6. 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), 38-60.
7. Charette, R. (2005). Why software fails. IEEE Spectrum Online. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1685
8. Dennis, A., & Wixom, B. (2000). System analysis and design: An applied approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
9. 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.
10. Dobing, B. & Parsons, J. (2008). Dimensions of UML diagram use: A survey of practitioners. Journal of Database Management, 19(1), 1-18.
11. Dori, D. (2002). Why significant UML change is unlikely. Communications of the ACM, 45(11), 82-85.
12. Douglass, B. (1998). UML for Systems Engineering. Computer designs: Electronic Systems Technology & Design, 37(11), 44-49.
13. Evermann, J. (2005). Thinking ontologically - Conceptual versus design models in UML. In M. Rosemann & P. Green (Eds.), Ontologies and business analysis. Idea Group Publishing, 82-104.
14. Evermann, J. & Wand, Y. (2005). Ontology-based object-oriented business modelling: Fundamental concepts. Requirements Engineering Journal, 10(2), 146-160.
15. Fedorowicz, J. & Villeneuve, A. (1999). Surveying object technology usage and benefits: A test of conventional wisdom. Information & Management, 35(6) 331-345.
16. Gemino, A. (1999). Empirical comparison of system analysis techniques, Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
17. Gemino, A. (2004). Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Requirements Engineering Journal, 9(3), 153-168.
18. Gemino, A. & Wand, Y. (2003). Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 79-84.
19. Gemino, A. & Wand, Y. (2004). Dimensions in experimental evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering Journal, 9(4), 248-260.
20. Gemino, A. & Wand, Y. (2005). Simplicity versus clarity: An empirical comparison of mandatory and optional properties in conceptual modeling. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55, 301-326.
21. Halpin, T. & Bloesch, A. (1999). Data modeling in UML and ORM: A comparison. Journal of Database Management, 10(4), 4-13.
22. Jacobson, I., Ericsson, M., & Jacobson, A. (1994). The object advantage: Business process reengineering with object technology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23. Jacobson, I., Booch, G., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The unified software development process. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
24. Johnson, R. (2002). Object-oriented system development: A review of empirical research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 65-81.
25. Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P., & Park, S.-J. (2006). Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 81-99.
26. Kobryn, C. (1999). A standardization odyssey. Communications of the ACM, 42(10), 29-38.
27. Mayer, R. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
28. Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Mellor, S. (2002). Make models be assets. Communications of the ACM, 45(11), 76-78.
30. Meso, P. & Jain, R. (2006). Agile software development: Adaptive system principles and best practices. Information Systems Management, 23(5), 19-29.
31. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
32. Siau, K. & Cao, Q. (2001). Unified Modeling Language (UML) - A complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management, 12(1), 26-34.
33. Siau, K. & Loo, P. (2006). Identifying difficulties in learning UML. Information Systems Management, 23(3), 43-51.
34. Siau, K., Erickson, J., & Lee, L. (2005). Theoretical vs. practical complexity: The case of UML. Journal of Database Management, 16(3), 40-57.
35. Shoval, P. & Kabeli, J. (2005). Essentials of functional and object-oriented methodology. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, II, 1108-1115.
36. Standish Group. (1994). Chaos report. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from http://standishgroup.com/sample_research/chaos_1994_1.php
37. Wand Y. & Weber, R. (1993). On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Journal of Information Systems, 3, 217-237.
38. Wand, Y. & Weber, R. (2002). Information systems and conceptual modeling: A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 203-223.