Automatic layout of UML use case diagrams

SOFTVIS 2008 - Proceedings of the 4th ACM Symposium on Software Visualization

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 105-114

  Eichelberger, Holger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HILDESHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Automatic layout algorithms; Drawing rules; Model driven development; UML; Use case diagrams

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC LAYOUT ALGORITHMS; DRAWING RULES; MODEL-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT; UML; USE CASE DIAGRAMS;

ALGORITHMS; FOURIER TRANSFORMS; MODEL STRUCTURES; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; VISUALIZATION;

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

EID: 63149180890     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1409720.1409738     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. ALEXANDER, I. 2001. Visualizing Requirements in UML. Tech. rep., Telelogic white paper. Sept.
2. AMBLER, S. W. 2005. The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. Cambridge University Press.
3. BATTISTA, G. D., EADES, P., TAMASSIA, R., AND TOLLIS, I. 1999. Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Prentice Hall.
4. COCKBURN, A. 2001. Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison Wesley.
5. DAI, Z. R. 2005. UML 2.0 Testing Profile. In Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems: Advanced Lectures, M. Broy, B. Jonsson, J.-P. Katoen, M. Leucker, and A. Pretschner, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3472. Springer-Verlag Inc., 497-523.
6. EICHELBERGER, H. 2002. Evaluation-Report on the Layout Facilities of UML Tools. Technical Report 298, Institut für Informatik, University of Würzburg. July.
7. EICHELBERGER, H. 2003. Nice Class Diagrams Admit Good Design? In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization. ACM, ACM Press, New York, NY 10036, USA, 159-167.
8. EICHELBERGER, H. 2005. Aesthetics and Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams. Ph.D. thesis, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Würzburg University, Germany.
9. EIGLSPERGER, M., KAUFMANN, M., AND SIEBENHALLER, M. 2003. A Topology-Shape-Metrics Approach for the Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Software visualization. ACM, ACM Press, 189-216.
10. FORSTER, M. 2002. Applying Crossing Reduction Strategies to Layered Compound Graphs. In Graph Drawing: 10th International Symposium, GD 2002, Irvine, CA, USA, August 2002, Revised Papers, M. T. Goodricht and S. G. Kobourov, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2528. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, NY, USA, 276-284.
11. GANSNER, E. R., KOUTSOFIOS, E., NORTH, S. C., AND VO, K.-P. 1993. A Technique for Drawing Directed Graphs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19, 3 (Mar.), 214-230.
12. GUTWENGER, C., JUNGER, M., KLEIN, K., KUPKE, J., LEIPERT, S., ANDMUTZEL, P. 2003. A New Approach for Visualizing UML Class Diagrams. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Software visualization. ACM, ACM Press, 179-188.
13. HOFMAN, P. AND PIASECKI, M. 2006. Automatic Improvement of UML Diagrams Layout.
14. HRUSCHKA, P. 2000. Von informellen Wünschen und formalisierten Anforderungen. ObjektSpektrum 2.
15. JACOBSON, I. 1993. Object-Oriented Software Engineering. Addison Wesley.
16. KEALEY, J. 2007. Enhanced Use Case Map Analysis and Transformation Tooling. Ph.D. thesis, Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Computer Science, University of Ottawa, Canada.
17. KONING, H., DORMANN, C., AND VAN VLIET, H. 2002. Practical Guidelines for the Readability of IT-architecture Diagrams. In SIGDOC'02, October 20-23, 2002, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 90-99.
18. MAIER, S. AND MINAS, M. 2007. A Pattern-Based Layout Algorithm for Diagram Editors. In Proc. of the Workshop on the Layout of (Software) Engineering Diagrams (LED 2007), Coeur d'Alène, Idaho, USA, September 27, 2007.
19. NGUYEN, P. AND CHUN, R. 2006. Model Driven Development with Interactive Use Cases and UML Models.
20. NOGUCHI, T. AND TANAKA, J. 1998. New Automatic Layout Method based on Magnetic Spring Model for Object Diagrams of OMT. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Future Software Technology 1998 (ISFST'98). 89-94.
21. OMG. 2006. Diagram interchange, v 1.0. Online available at: http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/06-04-04.pdf.
22. OMG. 2007a. MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping, v2.1.1. Online available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.1.1/.
23. OMG. 2007b. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure version 2.1.1. Specification vl .3 2007-02-05, Object Management Group. Feb. Available online at: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2007-02-05.
24. PURCHASE, H., COLPOYS, L., CARRINGTON, D., AND MCGILL, M. 2003. UML Class Diagrams: An Empirical Study of Comprehension. In Software Visualization - From Theory to Practice, K. Zhang, Ed. Kluwer, 149-178.
25. PURCHASE, H. C., COHEN, R. F., AND JAMES, M. 1995. Validating Graph Drawing Aesthetics. In Graph Drawing: Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD '95, Passau, Germany, September 20-22, 1995: proceedings, F. J. Brandenburg, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1027. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, NY, USA, 435-446.
26. SUGIYAMA, K. AND MISUE, K. 1996. A Generic Compound Graph Visualizer / Manipulator: D-ABDUCTOR. In Graph Drawing: Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD '95, Passau, Germany, September 20-22, 1995: proceedings, F. J. Brandenburg, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1027. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, NY, USA, 500-503.
27. SUGIYAMA, K., TAGAWA, S., AND TODA, M. 1981. Methods for Visual Understanding of Hierarchical System Structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics SMC-11, 2 (Feb.), 109-125.
28. SUN, D. AND WONG, K. 2005. On Evaluating the Layout of UML Class Diagrams for Program Comprehension. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC'05). IEEE.
29. VON GUDENBERG, J. W., NIEDERLE, A., EBNER, M., AND EICHELBERGER, H. 2006. Evolutionary Layout of UML Class Diagrams. In SoftVis06.