A systematic literature review on the quality of UML models

Journal of Database Management

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 46-66

  Genero, Marcela ^a   Fernández Saez, Ana M ^a   James Nelson, H ^b   Poels, Geert ^c   Piattini, Mario ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA LA MANCHA   (Spain)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Conceptual model quality; Conceptual models; Software; Systematic literature review; Unified modeling language (UML)

Indexed keywords

APPLICATION DOMAINS; CLASSIFICATION SCHEME; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; CONCEPTUAL MODEL QUALITY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; JOURNAL ARTICLES; MODEL QUALITIES; MODELING METHOD; RESEARCH GOALS; RESEARCH RESULTS; SEMANTIC COMPLETENESS; SOFTWARE PRODUCTS; SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW; UML MODEL; UNIFIED MODELING;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DIGITAL LIBRARIES; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RESEARCH; SEMANTICS;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 80052903126     PISSN: 10638016     EISSN: 15338010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jdm.2011070103     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Atkinson, C., & Kühne, T. (2003). Model-driven development: A metamodeling foundation. IEEE Software, 20(5), 36-41. doi:10.1109/MS.2003. 1231149
2. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571-583. doi:10.1016/j. jss.2006.07.009 (Pubitemid 46329126)
3. Dobing, B., & Parsons, J. (2006). How UML is used. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 109-113. doi:10.1145/1125944.1125949 (Pubitemid 44046412)
4. Dzidek, W. J., Arisholm, E., & Briand, L. C. (2008). A realistic empirical evaluation of the costs and benefits of UML in software maintenance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(3), 407-432. doi:10.1109/TSE.2008. 15
5. Erickson, J., & Siau, K. (2007). Theoretical and practical complexity of modeling methods. Communications of the ACM, 50(8), 46-51. doi:10.1145/1278201.1278205 (Pubitemid 47169586)
6. Fenton, N., Pfleeger, S. L., & Glass, R. L. (1994). Science and Substance: A Challenge to Software Engineers. IEEE Software, 11(4), 86-95. doi:10.1109/52.300094
7. France, R., Bieman, J., & Cheng, B. (2007). Repository for model driven development (ReMoDD). In Proceedings of the MoDELS Workshops (pp. 311-317).
8. Genero, M., Piattini, M., & Calero, C. (2005a). A survey of metrics for UML class diagrams. Journal of Object Technology, 4(9), 59-92. doi:10.5381/jot.2005.4.9.a1 (Pubitemid 41739082)
9. Genero, M., Piattini, M., & Calero, C. (2005b). Metrics for software conceptual models. London, UK: Imperial College Press. doi:10.1142/9781860946066
10. Grossman, M., Aronson, J. E., & McCarthy, R. V. (2005). Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community. Information and Software Technology, 47(6), 383-397. doi:10.1016/j. infsof.2004.09.005 (Pubitemid 40391292)
11. International Organization for Standardization. (1998). ISO/IEC 9126: Information Technology - Software product quality. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
12. Jørgensen, M., & Shepperd, M. J. (2007). A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33(1), 33-53. doi:10.1109/TSE.2007.256943 (Pubitemid 46002167)
13. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Tech. Rep. No. TR/SE-0401). Staffordshire, UK: Keele University.
14. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Staffordshire, UK: Keele University.
15. Krogstie, J. (1998). Integrating the understanding of quality in requirements specification and conceptual modeling. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 23(1), 86-91. doi:10.1145/272263.272285
16. Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Sølvberg, A. (1994). Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11(2), 42-49, 267. doi:10.1109/52.268955
17. Liu, J., Dehlinger, J., & Lutz, R. (2007). Safety analysis of software product lines using state-based modeling. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(11), 1879-1892. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.01.047 (Pubitemid 47404638)
18. Lucas, F. J., Molina, F., & Toval, A. (2009). A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Information and Software Technology, 51(12), 1631-1645. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.04.009
19. Matulevicius, R., & Heymans, P. (2007). Comparing goal modelling languages: An experiment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (pp. 18-32).
20. Matulevicius, R., Heymans, P., & Sindre, G. (2006). Comparing goal-modelling tools with the re-tool evaluation approach. Information Technology and Control, 35(3 A), 276-284.
21. Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V., & Neple, T. (2009). Definitions and approaches to model quality in modelbased software development - A review of literature. Information and Software Technology, 51(12), 1646-1669. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.04.004
22. Moody, D. L. (2005). Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55(3), 243-276. doi:10.1016/j. datak.2004.12.005 (Pubitemid 41398084)
23. Nelson, H., Monarchi, D., & Nelson, K. (2001). Ensuring the "goodness" of a conceptual representation. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Measurement and ICT Control, Heidelberg, Germany.
24. Neto, A. D., Subramanyan, R., Vieira, M., Travassos, G. H., & Shull, F. (2008). Improving Evidence about Software Technologies: A Look at Model-Based Testing. IEEE Software, 25(3), 10-13. doi:10.1109/MS.2008.64 (Pubitemid 351715607)
25. Offutt, J., & Abdurazik, A. (1999). Generating tests from UML specifications. In R. France & B. Rumpe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Unified Modeling Language (LNCS 1723, pp. 416-429).
26. OMG. (1997). Object Management Group - UML. Retrieved from http://www.uml.org/
27. OMG. (2003). MDA guide (Vol. version 1.0.1). Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/docs/omg/03-06-01.pdf.
28. OMG. (2005). The Unified Modeling Language. Documents associated with UML Version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.0
29. Piattini, M., Genero, M., Poels, G., & Nelson, J. (2005). Towards a framework for conceptual modelling quality. In Genero, M., Piattini, M., & Calero, C. (Eds.), Metrics For software conceptual models (pp. 1-18). London, UK: Imperial College Press. doi:10.1142/9781860946066-0001
30. Poels, G., Nelson, J., Genero, M., & Piattini, M. (2003). Quality in conceptual modeling - New research directions. In A. Olivé, M. Yoshikawa, & E. S. K. Yu (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Advanced Conceptual Modeling Techniques (LNCS 2784, pp. 243-250).
31. Pretorius, R., & Budgen, D. (2008). A mapping study on empirical evidence related to the models and forms used in the UML. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Kaiserslautern, Germany (pp. 342-344).
32. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., & Krogstie, J. (2007). Ontology-versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling languages: A comparison. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20(48), 774-799.
33. Rumbaugh, J., Booch, G., & Jacobson, I. (1998). Unified modeling language reference manual. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
34. Selic, B. (2003). The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software, 20, 19-25. doi:10.1109/MS.2003.1231146
35. Shull, F., Singer, J., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2008). Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5
36. Sjøberg, D. I., Hannay, J. E., Hansen, O., Kampenes, V. B., Karahasanovic, A., Liborg, N., & Rekdal, A. C. (2005). A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31, 733-753. doi:10.1109/TSE.2005.97 (Pubitemid 41555415)
37. Thomas, D. (2004). MDA: Revenge of the modelers or UML utopia? IEEE Software, 21, 15-17. doi:10.1109/MS.2004.1293067
38. Unhelkar, B. (2005). Verification and validation for quality of UML 2.0 models. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience. doi:10.1002/0471734322
39. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling - A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363-376. doi:10.1287/isre.13.4.363.69 (Pubitemid 36039702)
40. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
41. Zelkowitz, M., & Wallace, D. (1997). Experimental validation in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 39, 735-743. doi:10.1016/S0950-5849 (97) 00025-6 (Pubitemid 127371611)
42. Zelkowitz, M., Wallace, D., & Binkley, D. W. (2003). Experimental validation of new software technology. In Lecture Notes on Empirical Software Engineering (pp. 229-263). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. doi:10.1142/9789812795588-0006