Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Cover of the book

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Survey on the Applicability of Textual Notations for the Unified Modeling Language

Authors : Stephan Seifermann, Henning Groenda

Published in: Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is the most commonly used software description language. Today, textual notations for UML aim for a compact representation that is suitable for developers. Many textual notations exist but their applicability in engineering teams varies because a standardized textual notation is missing. Evaluating notations in order to find a suitable one is cumbersome and guidelines found in surveys do not report on applicability. This survey identifies textual notations for UML that can be used instead of or in combination with graphical notations, e.g. by collaborating teams or in different contexts. Additionally, it rates the notation’s applicability with respect to UML coverage, user editing experience, and applicability focused on engineering teams. Our results facilitate the otherwise unclear selection of a notation tailored for specific scenarios and enables trade-off decisions. We identified and characterized 21 known notations and 12 notations that were not covered in previous surveys. We used 20 categories to characterize the notations. Our findings show that a single notation does not cover more than 3 UML diagram types (mean 2.6), supports all surveyed state of the art editing features (only one notation supports all), and fits into existing tool chains.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
next chapter Using Workflows to Automate Activities in MDE Tools
Footnotes
Literature
1.
Spinellis, D.: On the declarative specification of models. IEEE Softw. 20, 94–96 (2003)CrossRef
2.
Luque, L., Brandāo, L., Tori, R., Brandāo, A.: On the inclusion of blind people in UML e-learning activities. In: RBIE 2015, vol. 23, p. 18 (2015)
3.
Luque, L., Brandāo, L.O., Tori, R., Brandāo, A.A.F.: Are you seeing this? what is available and how can we include blind students in virtual UML learning activities. In: SBIE 2014 (2014)
4.
Luque, L., Veriscimo, E.S., Pereira, G.C., Filgueiras, L.V.L.: Can we work together? on the inclusion of blind people in UML model-based tasks. In: Langdon, P.M., Lazar, J., Heylighen, A., Dong, H. (eds.) Inclusive Designing, pp. 223–233. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-05095-9_​20 CrossRef
5.
Mazanec, M., Macek, O.: On general-purpose textual modeling languages. In: DATESO 2012, pp. 1–12 (2012)
6.
Seifermann, S., Groenda, H.: Survey on textual notations for the unified modeling language. In: MODELSWARD 2016, pp. 28–39. SciTePress (2016)
7.
Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (version 2.3). EBSE Technical report, EBSE-2007-01, Keele University (2007)
8.
Wohlin, C.: Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: EASE 2014, pp. 38:1–38:10. ACM (2014)
9.
10.
11.
12.
Kern, H.: Study of interoperability between meta-modeling tools. In: FedCSIS 2014, pp. 1629–1637 (2014)
13.
14.
Safdar, S.A., Iqbal, M.Z., Khan, M.U.: Empirical evaluation of UML modeling tools–a controlled experiment. In: Taentzer, G., Bordeleau, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9153, pp. 33–44. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-21151-0_​3 CrossRef
15.
Khaled, L.: A comparison between UML tools. In: ICECS 2009, pp. 111–114 (2009)
16.
17.
Jackson, D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM TOSEM 11, 256–290 (2002)CrossRef
18.
Information technology - z formal specification notation - syntax, type system and semantics. Standard, International Organization for Standardization (2002)
19.
Winikoff, M.: Towards making agent UML practical: a textual notation and a tool. In: NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, pp. 401–412 (2005)
20.
21.
22.
Feng, H.: DCharts, a formalism for modeling and simulation based design of reactive software systems. Master’s thesis, School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (2004)
23.
24.
Vieritz, H., Schilberg, D., Jeschke, S.: Access to UML diagrams with the HUTN. In: Jeschke, S., Isenhardt, I., Hees, F., Henning, K. (eds.) Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2013/2014, pp. 751–755. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-08816-7_​58
25.
Doi, T., Yoshioka, N., Tahara, Y., Honiden, S.: Bridging the gap between AUML and implementation using IOM/T. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) ProMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3346, pp. 147–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-540-32260-3_​8 CrossRef
26.
27.
28.
Washizaki, H., Akimoto, M., Hasebe, A., Kubo, A., Fukazawa, Y.: TCD: a text-based UML class diagram notation and its model converters. In: Kim, T., Kim, H.-K., Khan, M.K., Kiumi, A., Fang, W., Ślęzak, D. (eds.) ASEA 2010. CCIS, vol. 117, pp. 296–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-17578-7_​29 CrossRef
29.
30.
Jouault, F., Delatour, J.: Towards fixing sketchy UML models by leveraging textual notations: application to real-time embedded systems. In: OCL 2014, pp. 73–82 (2014)
31.
Dévai, G., Kovács, G.F., An, Á.: Textual, executable, translatable UML. In: OCL 2014, pp. 3–12 (2014)
32.
Grönniger, H., Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M., Völkel, S.: Text-based modeling. CoRR abs/1409.6623 (2014)
33.
Auer, M., Tschurtschenthaler, T., Biffl, S.: A flyweight UML modelling tool for software development in heterogeneous environments. In: EUROMICRO 2003, pp. 267–272. IEEE (2003)
34.
Lethbridge, T.: Umple: an open-source tool for easy-to-use modeling, analysis, and code generation. In: MoDELS 2014 (2014)
35.
Nero Grillo, F., Mattos Fortes, R.P.: Tests with blind programmers using AWMo: an accessible web modeling tool. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8513, pp. 104–113. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-07437-5_​11
36.
37.
38.
Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Can UML be simplified? practitioner use of UML in separate domains. In: EMMSAD 2007, pp. 89–98 (2007)
39.
Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F., Clerissi, D.: What are the used UML diagram constructs? a document and tool analysis study covering activity and use case diagrams. In: MODELSWARD 2014, pp. 66–83 (2014)
40.
He, Y.: Comparison of the modeling languages alloy and UML. In: SERP 2006, pp. 671–677 (2006)
41.
Metadata
Title
Survey on the Applicability of Textual Notations for the Unified Modeling Language
Authors
Stephan Seifermann
Henning Groenda
Copyright Year
2017
Book
Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66301-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-66302-9

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66302-9_1

Premium Partner

    Image Credits