An experimental comparison of ER and UML class diagrams for data modeling

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 455-492

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALERNO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MOLISE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Controlled experiments; Design notations; Entity relation diagrams; Maintenance; UML class diagrams; Verification

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT; DATA MODELING; DATA MODELS; DETECTION OF DEFECTS; ER DIAGRAMS; EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON; INTERPRETATION OF DATA; UML CLASS DIAGRAMS; UNIVERSITY STUDENTS; VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES;

GRAPHIC METHODS; MAINTENANCE; MODELS;

EXPERIMENTS;

EID: 77954758720     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: 15737616     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10664-009-9127-7     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Antoniol G, Canfora G, Casazza G, De Lucia A, Merlo E (2002) Recovering traceability links between code and documentation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(10):970-983.
2. Argwal R, De P, Sinha AP (1999) Comprehending object and processes models: an empirical study. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(4):541-556.
3. Arisholm E, Sjoberg D (2004) Evaluating the effect of a delegated versus centralized control style on the maintainability of object-oriented software. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(8):521-534.
4. Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B (1999) Modern information retrieval. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
5. Basili VR, Selby RW, Hutchens DH (1986) Experimentation in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 12(7):758-773.
6. Bock D, Ryan T (1993) Accuracy in modeling with extended entity relationship and object oriented data models. J Database Manage 4(4):30-39.
7. Briand L, Labiche Y, Di Penta M, Yan-Bondoc H (2005) An experimental investigation of formality in UML-based development. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(10):833-849.
8. Chen PP (1976) The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1(1):1-36.
9. Conallen J (1999) Building web applications with UML. Addison-Wesley object technology series. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
10. Conover WJ (1998) Practical nonparametric statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York.
11. Cruz-Lemus JA, Genero M, Manso ME, Piattini M (2005) Evaluating the effect of composite states on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams. In: Proceedings of 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on model driven engineering languages and systems. Springer, Montego Bay, pp 113-125.
12. De Lucia A, Fasano F, Francese R, Tortora G (2004) ADAMS: an artefact-based process support system. In: Proceedings of 16th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering. KSI, Banff, pp 31-36.
13. De Lucia A, Gravino C, Oliveto R, Tortora G (2008a) An experimental comparison of ER and UML class diagrams for data modelling: experimental material. Technical report. www.sesa.dmi.unisa.it/reportUMLvsER.pdf.
14. De Lucia A, Gravino C, Oliveto R, Tortora G (2008b) Assessing the support of ER and UML class diagrams during maintenance activities on data models. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on software maintenance and reengineering. IEEE, Athens, Greece, pp 173-182.
15. De Lucia A, Gravino C, Oliveto R, Tortora G (2008c) Data model comprehension: an empirical comparison of ER and UML class diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on program comprehension. IEEE, Amsterdam, pp 93-102.
16. Devore JL, Farnum N (1999) Applied statistics for engineers and scientists. Duxbury.
17. Downs E, Clare P, Coe I (1992) Structured systems analysis and design method: application and context. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
18. Gane C, Sarson T (1979) Structured systems analysis: tools and techniques. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
19. Gemino W, Wand Y (1997) Empirical comparison of objected oriented and dataflow models. In: Proceedings of international conference on information systems. ACM, Atlanta, pp 446-447.
20. Gemino A, Wand Y(2005) Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl Eng 55(3):301-326.
21. Henderson PB (2003) Mathematical reasoning in software engineering education. Commun ACM 46(9):45-50.
22. Hungerford BC, Eierman MA (2004) The communication effectiveness of system models using the UML versus structured techniques: a field experiment. American Journal of Business 20(2):35-43.
23. Juristo N, Moreno A (2001) Basics of software engineering experimentation. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
24. Kitchenham B, Fry J, Linkman S (2003) The case against cross-over designs in software engineering. In: Proceedings of 11th annual international workshop on software technology and engineering practice, pp 65-67.
25. Kuzniarz L, Staron M, Wholin C (2004) An empirical study on using stereotypes to improve understanding on UML models. In: Proceedings of 12th IEEE international workshop on program comprehension. IEEE CS, Bari, pp 14-23.
26. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81-97.
27. Navathe SB (1992) Evolution of data modeling for databases. Commun ACM 35(9):112-123.
28. OMG (2005) Object constraint language (OCL) specification, version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm.
29. Oppenheim AN (1992) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Pinter, London.
30. Otero C, Dolado JJ (2002) An initial experimental assessment of the dynamic modelling in UML. Empirical Software Engineering 7(1):27-47.
31. Palvia P, Lio C, To P (1992) The impact of conceptual data models on end-user performance. J Database Manage 3(4):4-15.
32. Purchase HC, Wellanda R, McGillb M, Colpoysb L (2004) Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations. Int J Human-comput Stud 61(2):187-203.
33. Purchase HC, Colpoys L, McGill M, Carrington D, Britton C (2001) UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In: Proceedings of Australian symposium on information visualisation. Australian Computer Society, Sydney, pp 113-120.
34. Reynoso L, Genero M, Piattini M, Manso ME (2006) Does object coupling really affect the understanding and modifying of UML expressions? In: Proceedings of 21st annual ACM symposium on applied computing. ACM, Dijon, pp 1721-1727.
35. Ricca F, Di Penta M, Torchiano M, Tonella P, Ceccato M (2007) The role of experience and ability in comprehension tasks supported by UML stereotypes. In: Proceedings of 29th international conference on software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Minneapolis, pp 375-384.
36. Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I, Booch G (2004) Unified modeling language reference manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
37. Shoval P, Frumermann I (1994) OO and EER conceptual schemas: a comparison of user comprehension. J Database Manage 5(4):28-38.
38. Shoval P, Shiran S (1997) Entity-relationship and object-oriented data modeling - an experimental comparison of design quality. Data Knowl Eng 21(3):297-315. (Pubitemid 127417505)
39. Torchiano M (2004) Empirical assessment of UML static object diagrams. In: Proceedings of 12th international workshop in program comprehension. IEEE Computer Society, Bari, pp 226-229.
40. Wang S (1996) Two MIS analysis methods: an experimental comparison. J Educ Bus 61(3):136-141.
41. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Host M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslen A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering-an introduction. Kluwer, Deventer.
42. Zimmermann T, Weissgerber P, Diehl S, Zeller A (2005) Mining version histories to guide software changes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(6):429-445.