Data model comprehension an empirical comparison of ER and UML class diagrams

IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 93-102

  De Lucia, Andrea ^a   Gravino, Carmine ^a   Oliveto, Rocco ^a   Tortora, Genoveffa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALERNO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BACHELOR STUDENTS; COMPREHENSION TASKS; CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS; DATA MODELLING; EMPIRICAL COMPARISON; INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES; PROGRAM COMPREHENSION; UML CLASS DIAGRAMS;

DATA STRUCTURES; ELECTRIC RESISTANCE; ENCODING (SYMBOLS); GRAPHIC METHODS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

EID: 71149110382     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ICPC.2008.26     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. G. Antoniol, G. Canfora, G. Casazza, A. De Lucia, and E. Merlo. Recovering traceability links between code and documentation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(10):970-983, 2002.
2. R. Argwal, P. De, and A. P. Sinha. Comprehending object and processes models: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4):541-556, 1999.
3. R. Baeza-Yates and B. Ribeiro-Neto. Modern Information Retrieval. Addison-Wesley, 1999.
4. V. R. Basili, R. W. Selby, and D. H. Hutchens. Experimentation in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 12(7):758-773, 1986.
5. D. Bock and T. Ryan. Accuracy in modeling with extended entity relationship and object oriented data models. Journal of Database Management, 4(4):30-39, 1993.
6. L. Briand, Y. Labiche, M. Di Penta, and H. Yan-Bondoc. An experimental investigation of formality in UML-based development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(10):833-849, 2005.
7. J. Conallen. Building Web Applications with UML. Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series, 1999.
8. W. J. Conover. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Wiley, 3rd edition edition, 1998.
9. J. A. Cruz-Lemus, M. Genero, M. E. Manso, and M. Piattini. Evaluating the effect of composite states on the understand-ability of UML Statechart diagrams. In Proceedings of 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 113-125, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 2005. Springer.
10. A. De Lucia, F. Fasano, R. Francese, and G. Tortora. ADAMS: an artefact-based process support system. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pages 31-36, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2004. KSI Press.
11. A. De Lucia, C. Gravino, R. Oliveto, and G. Tortora. Data model comprehension: an empirical comparison of er and uml class diagrams. Technical report, University of Salerno, http://www.sesa.dmi.unisa.it/tr/TR07.02.pdf, 2007.
12. A. De Lucia, C. Gravino, R. Oliveto, and G. Tortora. Assessing the support of ER and UML class diagrams during maintenance activities. In Proceedings of European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. IEEE press, 2008.
13. J. L. Devore and N. Farnum. Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Duxbury, 1999.
14. C. Gane and T. Sarson. Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice-Hall, 1979.
15. W. Gemino and Y. Wand. Empirical comparison of objected oriented and dataflow models. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information Systems, pages 446-447, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1997. ACM Press.
16. B. C. Hungerford and M. A. Eierman. The communication effectiveness of system models using the UML versus structured techniques: A field experiment. American Journal of Business, 20(2):35-43, 2004.
17. L. Kuzniarz, M. Staron, and C. Wholin. An empirical study on using stereotypes to improve understanding on UML models. In Proceedings of 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pages 14-23, Bari, Italy, 2004. IEEE CS Press.
18. G. A. Miller. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2): 81-97, 1956.
19. S. B. Navathe. Evolution of data modeling for databases. Communications of the ACM, 35(9): 112-123, 1992.
20. A. N. Oppenheim. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Pinter Publishers, 1992.
21. P. Palvia, C. Lio, and P. To. The impact of conceptual data models on end-user performance. Journal of Database Management, 3(4):4-15, 1992.
22. H. C. Purchase, L. Colpoys, M. McGill, D. Carrington, and C. Britton. UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In Pmceedings of Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pages 113-120, Sydney, Australia, 2001. Australian Computer Society.
23. H. C. Purchase, R. Wellanda. M. McGillb, and L. Colpoysb. Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 61 (2): 187-203, 2004.
24. L. Reynoso, M. Genero, M. Piattini, and M. E. Manso. Does object coupling really affect the understanding and modifying of UML expressions? In Proceedings of 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 1721-1727, Dijon, France, 2006. ACM Press.
25. F. Ricca, M. Di Penta, M. Torchiano, P. Tonella, and M. Ceccato. The role of experience and ability in comprehension tasks supported by UML stereotypes. In Proceedings of 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 375-384, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society.
26. J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 2004.
27. P. Shoval and I. Frumermann. OO and EER conceptual schemas: A comparison of user comprehension. Journal of Database Management, 5(4):28-38, 1994.
28. P. Shoval and S. Shiran. Entity-relationship and object-oriented data modeling - an experimental comparison of design quality. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 21(3):297-315, 1997.
29. D. Sun and K. Wong. On evaluating the layout of uml class diagrams for program comprehension. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pages 317-326. IEEE press, 2005.
30. S. Wang. Two MIS analysis methods: An experimental comparison. Journal of Education for Business, 61(3): 136-141, 1996.
31. C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Host, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wesslen. Experimentation in Software Engineering -An Introduction. Kluwer, 2000.