Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 3/2019

12.01.2018 | Regular Paper

Example-driven modeling: on effects of using examples on structural model comprehension, what makes them useful, and how to create them

verfasst von: Dina Zayan, Atrisha Sarkar, Michał Antkiewicz, Rita Suzana Pitangueira Maciel, Krzysztof Czarnecki

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We present a controlled experiment for the empirical evaluation of example-driven modeling (EDM), an approach that systematically uses examples for model comprehension and domain knowledge transfer. We conducted the experiment with 26 graduate (Masters and Ph.D. level) and undergraduate (Bachelor level) students from electrical and computer engineering, computer science, and software engineering programs at the University of Waterloo. The experiment involves a domain model, with UML class diagrams representing the domain abstractions and UML object diagrams representing examples of using these abstractions. The goal is to provide empirical evidence of the effects of suitable examples on model comprehension, compared to having model abstractions only, by having the participants perform model comprehension tasks. Our results show that EDM is superior to having model abstractions only, with an improvement of 39% for diagram completeness, 33% for questions completeness, 71% for efficiency, and a reduction in the number of mistakes by 80%. We provide qualitative results showing that participants receiving model abstractions augmented with examples experienced lower perceived difficulty in performing the comprehension tasks, higher perceived confidence in their tasks’ solutions, and asked 90% fewer clarifying domain questions. We also present participants’ feedback regarding the usefulness of the provided examples, their number and types, as well as the use of partial examples. We present a taxonomy of the different types of examples, explain their significance, and propose guidelines for manual and automatic creation of useful examples.
Vorheriger Artikel Enabling automated requirements reuse and configuration
Nächster Artikel Towards a model-driven engineering approach for the assessment of non-functional properties using multi-formalism

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
We follow a terminology where a class “owns” the association iff it owns the participating endpoint of the association. Thus, bidirectional associations are instantiated twice, once each for the participating classes.
 
2
OCL is well known to be very difficult to understand even for advanced modelers
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Andrews, A., France, R., Ghosh, S., Craig, G.: Test adequacy criteria for UML design models. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 13(2), 95–127 (2003)CrossRef
3.
Antkiewicz, M., Bąk, K., Zayan, D., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A., Diskin, Z.: Example-driven modeling using Clafer. In: First International Workshop on Model-driven Engineering By Example (2013)
4.
Bąk, K., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Feature and meta-models in Clafer: mixed, specialized and coupled. In: International Conference on Software Language Engineering, pp. 291–301 (2010)
5.
Bąk, K., Diskin, Z., Antkiewicz, M., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Partial instances via subclassing. In: 6th International Conference on Software Language Engineering (2013)
6.
Bąk, K., Zayan, D., Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M., Diskin, Z., Wąsowski, A., Rayside, D.: Example-driven modeling. Model = Abstractions + Examples. In: New Ideas and Emerging Results (NIER) track of ICSE’13 (2013)
7.
Balogh, A., Varró, D.: Advanced model transformation language constructs in the VIATRA2 framework. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1280–1287. ACM (2006)
8.
Batot, E.: Generating examples for knowledge abstraction in MDE: a multi-objective framework. In: SRC@ MoDELS, pp. 1–6 (2015)
9.
Bauer, J., Baader, F.: Model exploration to support understanding of ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, Master’s thesis, Technische Universität Dresden (2009)
10.
Brosch, P., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: An example is worth a thousand words: composite operation modeling by-example. In: Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Volume 5795 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 271–285 (2009)
11.
Cerpa, N., Verner, J.M.: Why did your project fail? Commun. ACM 52(12), 130–134 (2009)CrossRef
12.
Chi, M.T., Feltovich, P.J., Glaser, R.: Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cogn. Sci. 5(2), 121–152 (1981)CrossRef
13.
Cho, H., Gray, J., Syriani, E.: Creating visual domain-specific modeling languages from end-user demonstration. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, MiSE ’12, pp. 22–28 (2012)
14.
Cornelissen, B., Zaidman, A., Van Deursen, A., Moonen, L., Koschke, R.: A systematic survey of program comprehension through dynamic analysis. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(5), 684–702 (2009)CrossRef
15.
Demuth, B.: The dresden OCL toolkit and its role in information systems development. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISDŠ2004), vol. 7 (2004)
16.
Dick, J., Faivre, A.: Automating the generation and sequencing of test cases from model-based specifications. In: Woodcock, J., Larsen, P. (eds.) FME ’93: Industrial-Strength Formal Methods, volume 670 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 268–284. Springer, Berlin (1993)
17.
Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is used. Commun. ACM 49(5), 109–113 (2006)CrossRef
18.
Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: Dimensions of UML diagram use: a survey of practitioners. J. Database Manag. 19(1), 1–18 (2008)CrossRef
19.
Ehrig, K., Küster, J., Täntzer, G.: Generating instance models from meta models. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(4), 479–500 (2009)CrossRef
20.
Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., Meyerovich, L.A., Tschantz, M.C.: Verification and change-impact analysis of access-control policies. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 196–205. ACM (2005)
21.
Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., Muller, P.-A., Le Traon, Y.: Qualifying input test data for model transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(2), 185–203 (2009)CrossRef
22.
Gick, M.L., Holyoak, K.J.: Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cogn. Psychol. 15(1), 1–38 (1983)CrossRef
23.
Gick, M.L., Paterson, K.: Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer? Can. J. Psychol. 46(4), 539–550 (1992)CrossRef
24.
Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: a UML-based specification environment for validating UML and OCL. Sci. Comput. Progr. 69(1), 27–34 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
25.
Goldstone, R.L., Son, J.Y.: The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. J. Learn. Sci. 14(1), 69 (2005)CrossRef
26.
Guan, P., Reiss, L., Hirshberg, D.A., Weiss, A., Black, M.J.: Drape: dressing any person. ACM Trans. Graph. 31(4), 35 (2012)CrossRef
27.
Halbert, D.C.: Programming by example. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley (1984)
28.
Harel, D., Marron, A., Weiss, G.: Behavioral programming. Commun. ACM 55(7), 90–100 (2012)CrossRef
29.
Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’11, pp. 471–480, New York. ACM (2011)
30.
Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press, London (2012)
31.
Jackson, E.K., Kang, E., Dahlweid, M., Seifert, D., Santen, T.: Components, platforms and possibilities: towards generic automation for MDA. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, pp. 39–48. ACM (2010)
32.
Janzen, D., Saiedian, H.: Test-driven development concepts, taxonomy, and future direction. Computer 38(9), 43–50 (2005)CrossRef
33.
Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin (2010)MATH
34.
Kalyuga, S.: Knowledge elaboration: a cognitive load perspective. Cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction. Learn. Instr. 19(5), 402–410 (2009)CrossRef
35.
Kappel, G., Langer, P., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W., Wimmer, M.: Conceptual modelling and its theoretical foundations. In: Chapter Model Transformation by-Example: A Survey of the First Wave, pp. 197–215 (2012)
36.
Karasneh, B., Jolak, R., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Using examples for teaching software design: an experiment using a repository of UML class diagrams. In: 2015 Asia–Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pp. 261–268 (2015)
37.
Kessentini, M., Sahraoui, H., Boukadoum, M., Omar, O.B.: Search-based model transformation by example. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(2), 209–226 (2012)CrossRef
38.
Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., Pickard, L., Jones, P., Hoaglin, D., El Emam, K., Rosenberg, J.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(8), 721–734 (2002)CrossRef
39.
Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L., Pickard, L.M., Jones, P.W., Hoaglin, D.C., El Emam, K., Rosenberg, J.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(8), 721–734 (2002)CrossRef
40.
Lauesen, S., Vinter, O.: Preventing requirement defects: an experiment in process improvement. Requir. Eng. 6(1), 37–50 (2001)CrossRefMATH
41.
Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–55 (1932)
42.
López-Fernández, J.J., Cuadrado, J.S., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Example-driven meta-model development. Softw. Syst. Model. 14, 1–25 (2013)
43.
López-Fernández, J.J., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Combining unit and specification-based testing for meta-model validation and verification. Inf. Syst. 62, 104–135 (2016)CrossRef
44.
45.
Maoz, S., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B.: Modal object diagrams. In: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pp. 281–305. Springer (2011)
46.
Mendel, L.: Modeling by example. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2007)
47.
Montaghami, V., Rayside, D.: Extending alloy with partial instances. In: Proceedings of Abstract State Machines, Alloy, B, VDM, and Z: Third International Conference, ABZ 2012, June 18–21, pp. 122–135 (2012)
48.
Moody, D.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRef
49.
Nebeling, M., Geel, M., Norrie, M.C.: Engineering information management tools by example. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 313–320. ACM (2014)
50.
Nelson, T., Saghafi, S., Dougherty, D.J., Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S.: Aluminum: principled scenario exploration through minimality. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 232–241. IEEE Press (2013)
51.
North, D.: Introducing BDD. Better Softw. 12, 1 (2006)
52.
Nugroho, A.: Level of detail in UML models and its impact on model comprehension: a controlled experiment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(12), 1670–1685 (2009)CrossRef
53.
Offutt, J., Abdurazik, A.: Generating tests from UML specifications. In: France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML’99—The Unified Modeling Language, Volume 1723 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 416–429 (1999)
54.
Olkin, I.: Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1960)MATH
55.
Park, S.S.: Communicating domain knowledge through example-driven story testing. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta (2011)
56.
Petre, M.: UML in practice. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 722–731 (2013)
57.
Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D., Britton, C.: UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Asia–Pacific Symposium on Information Visualisation—Volume 9, APVis’01, pp. 113–120. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2001)
58.
Ricca, F., Di Penta, M., Torchiano, M., Tonella, P., Ceccato, M.: The role of experience and ability in comprehension tasks supported by UML stereotypes. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 375–384 (2007)
59.
Sadilek, D.A., Weißleder, S.: Testing metamodels. In: Model Driven Architecture–Foundations and Applications, pp. 294–309. Springer, Berlin (2008)
60.
Salay, R., Chechik, M., Horkoff, J., Sandro, A.D.: Managing requirements uncertainty with partial models. Requir. Eng. 18(2), 107–128 (2013)CrossRef
61.
Scanniello, G., Ricca, F., Torchiano, M.: On the effectiveness of the UML object diagrams: a replicated experiment. In: 15th Annual Conference on Evaluation Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2011), pp. 76–85 (2011)
62.
Sun, Y., White, J., Gray, J.: Model transformation by demonstration. In: Schurr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 712–726. Springer, Berlin (2009)
63.
64.
65.
Torchiano, M.: Empirical assessment of UML static object diagrams. In: Proceedings of 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 226–230 (2004)
66.
Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: a relational model finder. In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 632–647. Springer, Berlin (2007)
67.
van Gog, T., Kester, L., Paas, F.: Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36(3), 212–218 (2011)CrossRef
68.
van Solingen, R., Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Goal Question Metric (GQM) Approach. Wiley, New York (2002)CrossRef
69.
Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (2003)
70.
71.
Whittle, J.: What do 449 MDE practitioners think about MDE? In: EESSMod (2011)
72.
Wimmer, M., Strommer, M., Kargl, H., Kramler, G.: Towards model transformation generation by-example. In: 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007, pp. 285b–285b. IEEE (2007)
73.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)CrossRefMATH
74.
Yusuf, S., Kagdi, H., Maletic, J.I.: Assessing the comprehension of UML class diagrams via eye tracking. In: 15th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’07), pp. 113–122. IEEE Computer Society (2007)
75.
Zayan, D., Antkiewicz, M., Czarnecki, K.: Effects of using examples on structural model comprehension: a controlled experiment. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 955–966. ACM (2014)
76.
Zloof, M.: QBE/OBE: a language for office and business automation. Computer 14(5), 13–22 (1981)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Example-driven modeling: on effects of using examples on structural model comprehension, what makes them useful, and how to create them
verfasst von
Dina Zayan
Atrisha Sarkar
Michał Antkiewicz
Rita Suzana Pitangueira Maciel
Krzysztof Czarnecki
Publikationsdatum
12.01.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0652-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Software and Systems Modeling 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Regular Paper

Template-based model generation

Special Section Paper

Handling index-out-of-bounds in safety-critical embedded C code using model-based development

Editorial

Editorial to the theme section on model-based design of cyber-physical systems

Special Section Paper

An experiment in model-driven conceptual database design

Special Section Paper

Metamodel specialization for graphical language support

Special Section Paper

On leveraging the fruits of research efforts in the arena of business process modeling formalisms: a map-driven approach for decision making