A survey into the rigor of UML use and its perceived impact on quality and productivity

ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 90-99

  Nugroho, Ariadi ^a   Chaudron, Michel R V ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Completeness; Consistency; Correspondence; Level of detail; Unified modeling language

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; ENGINEERING; LINGUISTICS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SURVEYS;

COMPLETENESS; CONSISTENCY; CORRESPONDENCE; DE FACTO STANDARDS; EMPIRICAL FINDINGS; IMPLEMENTATION PHASIS; LEVEL OF DETAIL; MODELING NOTATIONS; PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARES; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT; SOFTWARE ENGINEERS; SOFTWARE INDUSTRIES; SOFTWARE MODELING; UML(UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE);

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 62949180158     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1414004.1414020     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. A. Abdurazik and J. Offutt. Using UML collaboration diagrams for static checking and test generation. In A. Evans, S. Kent, and B. Selic, editors, UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. Third International Conference, York, UK, October 2000, Proceedings, volume 1939, pages 383-395. Springer, 2000.
2. E. Arisholm, L. C. Briand, S. E. Hove, and Y. Labiche. The impact of uml documentation on software maintenance: An experimental evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 32(6):365-381, 2006.
3. F. Basanieri, A. Bertolino, and E. Marchetti. The cow-suite approach to planning and deriving test suites in uml projects. UML 2002: The Unified Modeling Language, pages 275-303, 2002.
4. H. R. Bernard, P. Killworth, D. Kronenfeld, and L. Sailer. The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13:495-517, 1984.
5. B. W. Boehm, J. R. Brown, and M. Lipow. Quantitative evaluation of software quality. In ICSE '76: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering, pages 592-605, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1976. IEEE Computer Society Press.
6. L. C. Briand and Y. Labiche. A UML-based approach to system testing. In UML '01: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, pages 194-208, London, UK, 2001. Springer-Verlag.
7. M. Cherubini, G. Venolia, R. DeLine, and A. J. Ko. Let's go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings. In CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 557-566, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
8. B. Dobing and J. Parsons. How UML is used. Commun. ACM, 49(5):109-113, 2006.
9. F. Fraikin and T. Leonhardt. SeDiTeC-testing based on sequence diagrams. In ASE'02: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, page 261, Washington, DC, USA, 2002. IEEE Computer Society.
10. IEEE Computer Society. IEEE standard computer dictionary : a compilation of IEEE standard computer glossaries. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY, 1991.
11. B. A. Kitchenham and S. L. Pfleeger. Principles of survey research part 2: designing a survey. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 27(1): 18-20, 2002.
12. C. F. J. Lange, M. R. V. Chaudron, and J. Muskens. In practice: UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Software., 23(2):40-46, 2006.
13. G. C. Murphy, D. Notkin, and K. J. Sullivan. Software reflexion models: Bridging the gap between design and implementation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 27(4):364-380, 2001.
14. A. Nugroho. Experiment materials, http://www.liacs.nl/~anugroho.
15. A. Nugroho and M. R. V. Chaudron. A survey of the practice of design - code correspondence amongst professional software engineers. ESEM, 0:467-469, 2007.
16. A. Nugroho and M. R. V. Chaudron. Managing the quality of UML models in practice. In J. Rech and C. Bunse, editors, Model-Driven Software Development: Integrating Quality Assurance. Idea Group Inc., 2008.
17. J. Offutt and A. Abdurazik. Generating tests from uml specifications. UML '99 - The Unified Modeling Language, pages 76-76, 1999.
18. D. J. A. van Opzeeland, C. F. J. Lange, and M. R. V. Chaudron. Quantitative techniques for the assessment of correspondence between UML designs and implementations. 9th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering, 2005.