Experimental Comparison of the Comprehensibility of a UML-based Formal Specification versus a Textual One

11th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2007

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages

  Razali, Rozilawati ^a   Snook, Colin F ^a   Poppleton, Michael R ^a   Garratt, Paul W ^a   Walters, Robert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

empirical assessment; Notation comprehensibility; semi formal and formal notations

Indexed keywords

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

COMPREHENSION TASKS; EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT; EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON; FORMAL NOTATIONS; NOTATION COMPREHENSIBILITY; PRIMARY OBJECTIVE; SEMI-FORMAL AND FORMAL NOTATION; SOFTWARE SPECIFICATION; SOFTWARE VALIDATION; SYSTEM PROPERTY;

FORMAL SPECIFICATION;

EID: 84885971712     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.14236/ewic/EASE2007.1     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Craigen, D., Gerhart, S and Ralston, T. (1995) Formal Methods Technology Transfer: Impediments and Innovation. In Hinchey, M. and Bowen, J. (eds), Applications of Formal Methods, Prentice-Hall, Englewoodcliffs, New Jersey.
2. Hinchey, M. G. (2002) Confessions of a Formal Methodist. In Lindsay, P. (eds), Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Australian Computer Society.
3. Finney, K and Fedorec, A. (1996) An Empirical Study of Specification Readability”, In Dean, N. and Hinchey, M. (eds), Teaching and Learning Formal Methods, Academic Press, New York.
4. Finney, K. (1996) Mathematical Notation in Formal Specification: Too difficult for the Masses?. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22, 158-159.
5. Carew, D., Exton, C. and Buckley, J. (2005) An Empirical Investigation of the Comprehensibility of Requirements Specifications. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 256-265.
6. Vessey, I. and Weber, R. (1986) Structured Tools and Conditional Logic: An Empirical Investigation. Communications of the ACM, 29, 48-57.
7. nd Workshop, pp. 114-131.
8. Scanlan, D. A. (1989) Structured Flowcharts Outperform Pseudocode: An Experiment Comparison. IEEE Software, 6, 28-36.
9. Bauer, M. and Johnson-Laird, P. (1993) How Diagrams Can Improve Reasoning. Psychological Science, 4, 372-378.
10. Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J. (1995) A Cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation”, Cognitive Science, 19, 97-140.
11. Petre, M. (1995) Why Looking isn't always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of the ACM, 38, 33-44.
12. Abrial, J. R (1996) The B-Method - Assigning Programs to Meanings, Cambridge University Press.
13. Object Management Group (2006) Introduction to OMG’s Unified Modeling Language (UML). [Online]. Available: http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/what_is_uml.htm (Cited Jan 2007)
14. Snook, C. and Butler, M (2006) UML-B: Formal Modelling and Design Aided by UML, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 15, 92-122.
15. ClearSy, AtelierB User Manual V3.6, ClearSy System Engineering, 2003, Aix-en-Provence, France.
16. B-Core (UK) Limited, Oxon, UK (1999) B-Toolkit, On-line manual, [Online]. Available: http://www.bcore.com/ONLINEDOC/Contents.html (Cited Jan 2007)
17. Pender, T. (2003) UML Bible, Wiley.
18. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R. and Tapangco, L. (1996) When Less is More: Meaningful Learning from Visual and Verbal Summaries of Science Textbook Lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64-73.
19. Senn, S. (2002) Cross-over Trials in Clinical Research (Statistics in Practice), John Wiley & Sons.
20. th Edition, Addision-Wesley.
21. Seaman, C. B. (1999) Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25, 557-572.
22. Daly, J. (1996) Replication and a Multi-Method Approach to Empirical Software Engineering Research. PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
23. Piattini, M., Genero, M., Poels, G. and Nelson, J (2005) Towards a Framework for Conceptual Modelling Quality”, In Genero, M, Piattini, M and Calero, C. (eds), Metrics for Software Conceptual Models, Imperial College Press, London.
24. Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a Committee of College and University Examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Longmans, New York.
25. Pfleeger, S. L (1995) Experimental Design and Analysis in Software Engineering: Part 1-5. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 20, No.1-5.
26. Kitchenham, B. A and Pfleeger, S. L (2002) Principles of Survey Research: Part 1-6. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 27, No.1-6.
27. Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. (1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York, London.
28. th Edition, W. H. Freeman, New York.
29. Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. (1986) The Bootstrap Method for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1, 1-35.
30. Insightful Corporation (2006) [Online]. Available: http://www.insightful.com/products/splus/default.asp (Cited Jan 2007)
31. nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, London.
32. Efron, B. (1981) Nonparametric Standard Errors and Confidence Intervals. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 36, 369-401.
33. Courtney, R. E and Gustafson, D. A. (1992) Shotgun Correlations in Software Measures. Software Engineering Journal, 8, 5-13.
34. Rosenberger, W. F. (1996) Dealing with Multiplicities in Pharmacoepidemiologic Studies. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 5, 95-100.
35. Senn, S. (1992) Is the Simple Carry-over Model Useful?. Statistics in Medicine, 11, 715-726.
36. Basili, V. R., Shull, F. and Lanubile, F. (1999) Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25, 456-473.