HOW GOOD ARE THESE UML DIAGRAMS? AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE WAND AND WEBER GOOD DECOMPOSITION MODEL

Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2002

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 101-114

  Burton Jones, Andrew ^a   Meso, Peter ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

decomposition; Object oriented analysis; ontology; UML; unified modeling language

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

DECOMPOSITION MODEL; EMPIRICAL TEST; FORMAL MODELING; MODEL OF SYSTEMS; OBJECT-ORIENTED ANALYSIS; OBJECT-ORIENTED DESIGN; ONTOLOGY'S; S-THEORY; UML; UML DIAGRAMS;

ONTOLOGY;

EID: 84951837007     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Agarwal, R., De, P., Sinha, A. P., and Tanniru, M. “On the Usability of OO Representations,” Communications of the ACM (43:10), 2000, pp. 83.
2. Ashcraft, M. H. Cognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2002.
3. Bansiya, J., and Davis, C. G. “A Hierarchical Model of Object-Oriented Design Quality Assessment,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (28:1), 2002, pp. 4-17.
4. Basili, V., Briand, L. C., and Melo, W. L. “A Validation of Object-Oriented Design Metrics as Quality Indicators,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (22:10), 1996, pp. 751-761.
5. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., and Weber, R. “Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modeling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests,” Information Systems Research (12:4), 2001, pp. 384-405.
6. Bunge, M. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology 1: The Furniture of the World. Boston: Reidel, 1977.
7. Burton-Jones, A., and Weber, R. “Understanding Relationships with Attributes in Entity-Relationship Diagrams,” in P. De and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, NC, 1999, pp. 214-228.
8. Chidamber, S. R., and Kemerer, C. F. “A Metrics Suite for Object-Oriented Design,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (20:6), 1994, pp. 476-493.
9. Chuang, T.-T., and Yadav, S. B. “A Decision-Driven Approach to Object-Oriented Analysis,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems (31:2), 2000, pp. 13-34.
10. Collins, A. M., and Quillan, M. R. “Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior (8), 1969, pp. 240-247.
11. Conger, S. A. The New Software Engineering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1994.
12. Davis, F. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and End User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989, pp. 318-339.
13. Dromney, R. G. “Cornering the Chimera,” IEEE Software (13:1), 1996, pp. 33-43.
14. Gemino, A. “To Be or May to Be: An Empirical Comparison of Mandatory and Optional Properties in Conceptual Modeling”, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Information Systems Division (19:4), Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 30–June 2, 1998, pg. 33-44.
15. Hardgrave, B., and Dalal, N. “Comparing Object-Oriented and Extended-Entity-Relational Data Models,” Journal of Database Management (6:3), 1995, pp. 15-21.
16. Huck, S. W., and Cormier, W. H. Reading Statistics and Research. New York: Harper Collins, 1996.
17. Johnson, R. A. “Object-Oriented Systems Development: A Review of Empirical Research,” Communications of the AIS (8), 2002, pp. 65-81.
18. Kim, J., Hahn, J., and Hahn, H. “How do we Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning,” Information Systems Research (11:3), 2000, pp. 284-303.
19. rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1995.
20. Kobryn, C. “UML 2001: A Standardization Odyssey,” Communications of the ACM (42:10), 1999, pp. 29-37.
21. Mayer, R. “Models for Understanding,” Review of Educational Research (59), 1989, pp. 43-64.
22. Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting and Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research (2), 1991, pp. 192-222.
23. Parnas, D. L. “On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules,” Communications of the ACM (15:12), 1972, pp. 1053-1058.
24. Parsons, J., and Wand, Y. “Using Objects for Systems Analysis,” Communications of the ACM (40:12), 1997, pp. 104-110.
25. Paulson, D., and Wand, Y. “An Automated Approach to Information Systems Decomposition,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (18:3), 1992, pp. 174-189.
26. Shanks, G. “Representation in Information Systems,” paper presented to the IS Foundations Workshop, Department of Computing, Macquarie University, 1999.
27. Siau, K., and Tian, Y. “The Complexity of Unified Modeling Language: A GOMS Analysis,” in V. Storey, S. Sarkar, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans, LA, 2001, pp. 443-447.
28. Sircar, S., Nerur, S. P., and Mahapatra, R. “Revolution or Evolution? A Comparison of Object-Oriented and Structured Systems Development Methods,” MIS Quarterly (25:4), 2001, pp. 457-471.
29. Vessey, I., and Conger, S. A. “Requirements Specification: Learning Object, Process, and Data Methodologies,” Communications of the ACM (37:5), 1994, pp. 102-113.
30. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. “A Model of Systems Decomposition,” in J. I. DeGross, J. C. Henderson, and B. R. Konsynski (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA, 1989, pp. 42-51.
31. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. “Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda,” Information Systems Research (13:4), 2002.
32. Weber, R. “Comprehending Decompositions: A Theory and Two Empirical Tests,” Working Paper, University of Queensland, 2001.
33. Weber, R. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Melbourne: Coopers & Lybrand and Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, 1997.
34. Wieringa, R. “A Survey of Structured and Object-Oriented Software Specification Methods and Techniques,” ACM Computing Surveys (30:4), 1998, pp. 459-527.