skip to main content
research-article

Facilitating the transition from use case models to analysis models: Approach and experiments

Published:04 March 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Use case modeling, including use case diagrams and use case specifications (UCSs), is commonly applied to structure and document requirements. UCSs are usually structured but unrestricted textual documents complying with a certain use case template. However, because Use Case Models (UCMods) remain essentially textual, ambiguity is inevitably introduced. In this article, we propose a use case modeling approach, called Restricted Use Case Modeling (RUCM), which is composed of a set of well-defined restriction rules and a modified use case template. The goal is two-fold: (1) restrict the way users can document UCSs in order to reduce ambiguity and (2) facilitate the manual derivation of initial analysis models which, when using the Unified Modeling Language (UML), are typically composed of class diagrams, sequence diagrams, and possibly other types of diagrams.

Though the proposed restriction rules and template are based on a clear rationale, two main questions need to be investigated. First, do users find them too restrictive or impractical in certain situations? In other words, can users express the same requirements with RUCM as with unrestricted use cases? Second, do the rules and template have a positive, significant impact on the quality of the constructed analysis models? To investigate these questions, we performed and report on two controlled experiments, which evaluate the restriction rules and use case template in terms of (1) whether they are easy to apply while developing UCMods and facilitate the understanding of UCSs, and (2) whether they help users manually derive higher quality analysis models than what can be generated when they are not used, in terms of correctness, completeness, and redundancy. This article reports on the first controlled experiments that evaluate the applicability of restriction rules on use case modeling and their impact on the quality of analysis models. The measures we have defined to characterize restriction rules and the quality of analysis class and sequence diagrams can be reused to perform similar experiments in the future, either with RUCM or other approaches.

Results show that the restriction rules are overall easy to apply and that RUCM results into significant improvements over traditional approaches (i.e., with standard templates, without restrictions) in terms of class correctness and class diagram completeness, message correctness and sequence diagram completeness, and understandability of UCSs.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Achour, C. B., Rolland, C., Maiden, N. A. M., and Souveyet, C. 1999. Guiding use case authoring: Results of an empirical study. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. 36--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Anda, B., Sjoberg, D., and Jorgensen, M. 2001. Quality and understandability of use case models. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Springer, 402--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Anda, B. and Sjoberg, D. I. K. 2005. Investigating the role of use cases in the construction of class diagrams. Empirical Soft. Engin. 10, 285--309. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Arisholm, E. and Sjoberg, D. I. K. 2004. Evaluating the effect of a delegated versus centralized control style on the maintainability of object-oriented software. IEEE Trans. Soft. Engin. 30, 521--534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Basili, V. R., Caldiera, G., and Rombach, H. D. 1994. The goal question metric approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering 1, 528--532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Belgamo, A., Fabbri, S., and Maldonado, J. C. 2005. TUCCA: Improving the effectiveness of use case construction and requirement analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. 266--275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bittner, K. and Spence, I. 2002. Use Case Modeling. Addison-Wesley Boston. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bruegge, B. and Dutoit, A. H. 2009. Object-Oriented Software Engineering Using UML, Patterns, and Java. Prentice Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Cockburn, A. 2001. Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley Boston. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cox, K. 2002. Heuristics for use case descriptions, PhD Thesis, Bournemouth University, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruz-Lemus, J., Maes, A., Genero, M., Poels, G., and Piattini, M. 2010. The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams. Inf. Sci. 180, 2209--2220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Dobing, B. and Parsons, J. 2006. How UML is used. Commun. ACM 49, 109--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Genero, M., Piattini, M., and Calero, C. 2000. Early measures for UML class diagrams. L'Objet 6, 489--505.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gomaa, H. 2000. Designing Concurrent, Distributed, and Real-Time Applications with UML. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Holt, R. W., Boehm-Davis, D. A. and Shultz, A. C. 1987. Mental representations of programs for student and professional programmers. In Empirical Studies of Programmers II. Ablex Publishing Corp., 33--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Höst, M., Regnell, B., and Wohlin, C. 2000. Using students as subjects - comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Soft. Engin. 5, 201--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Insfrán, E., Pastor, O., and Wieringa, R. 2002. Requirements engineering-based conceptual modelling. Requirements Eng. 7, 61--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jacobson, I. 1987. Object-oriented development in an industrial environment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages&Applications. ACM, 183--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jacobson, I. 2004. Use cases - yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Soft. Syst. Model. 3, 210--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., and Overgaard, G. 1992. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, H. and Boldyreff, C. 2002. Developing software metrics applicable to UML models. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kruchten, P. 2003. The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Kulak, D. and Guiney, E. 2000. Use Cases: Requirements in Context. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Lange, C. F. J., Chaudron, M. R. V., and Muskens, J. 2006. In practice: UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Softw. 23, 40--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Larman, C. 2004. Applying UML and Patterns. Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Liang, Y. 2003. From use cases to classes: a way of building object model with UML. Inf. Softw. Tech. 45, 83--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Liu, D. 2003. Automating transition from use cases to class model. In Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. 125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Major, M. L. and McGregor, J. D. 1999. Using guided inspection to validate UML models. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop. 485--507.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Marchesi, M. 1998. OOA metrics for the Unified Modeling Language. In Proceedings of the 2nd Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. 67--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Maldonado, J. C., Carver, J., Shull, F., Fabbri, S., Doria, E., Martimiano, L., Mendonca, M., and Basili, V. 2006. Perspective-based reading: A replicated experiment focused on individual reviewer effectiveness. Empirical Soft. Engin. 11, 119--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. OMG 2005. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification Object Management Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude Measurement. Pinter Pub Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Phalp, K. T., Vincent, J., and Cox, K. 2007a. Assessing the quality of use case descriptions. Software Quality Journal 15, 69--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Phalp, K. T., Vincent, J., and Cox, K. 2007b. Improving the quality of use case descriptions: empirical assessment of writing guidelines. Softw. Qual. J. 15, 383--399. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Reinhartz-Berger, I. and Sturm, A. 2008. Enhancing UML models: a domain analysis approach. J. Datab. Manage. 19, 74--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Reissing, R. 2001. Towards a model for object-oriented design measurement. In Proceedings of the ECOOP Workshop on Quantative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering. 71--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Schneider, G. and Winters, J. P. 1998. Applying Use Cases: A Practical Guide. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Śmiałek, M., Bojarski, J., Nowakowski, W., Ambroziewicz, A., and Straszak, T. 2007. Complementary use case scenario representations based on domain vocabularies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Somé, S. S. 2006. Supporting use case based requirements engineering. Inf. Softw. Tech. 48, 43--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Subramaniam, K., Liu, D., Far, B. H., and Eberlein, A. 2004. UCDA: Use case driven development assistant tool for class model generation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering&Knowledge Engineering. 324--329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Wahono, R. S. and Far, B. H. 2002. A framework for object identification and refinement process in object-oriented analysis and design. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics. 351--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Wohlin, C. and Wesslen, A. 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Xu, B., Kang, D., and Lu, J. 2004. A structural complexity measure for UML class diagrams. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science. 421--424.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Yue, T. 2010. Automatically deriving a uml analysis model from a use case model, PhD Thesis, Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, 350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Yue, T., Ali, S., and Briand, L. 2011a. Automated transition from use cases to UML state machines to support state-based testing. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Modeling Foundations and Applications. 115--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Yue, T., Briand, L. C., and Labiche, Y. 2009. A use case modeling approach to facilitate the transition towards analysis models: Concepts and empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Driven EngineeringLanguages and Systems. Springer, 484--498. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Yue, T., Briand, L. C., and Labiche, Y. 2010a. An automated approach to transform use cases into activity diagrams. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Modeling Foundations and Applications. Springer, 337--353. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Yue, T., Briand, L. C., and Labiche, Y. 2010b. Automatically deriving a UML analysis model from a use case model, Simula Research Laboratory, Tech. Rep. 2010--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Yue, T., Briand, L. C., and Labiche, Y. 2011b. A systematic review of transformation approaches between user requirements and analysis models. Requirements Eng. 16, 2, 75--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Facilitating the transition from use case models to analysis models: Approach and experiments

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Vladan Jovanovic

    Restricted use case modeling (RUCM), developed by Yue et al., provides well-defined rules and a related use case template to facilitate use case modeling and the derivation of unified modeling language (UML) analysis models (in the form of diagrams such as class, sequence, and so on). This paper reports on an extended controlled experiment to evaluate the applicability of specific restriction rules on use case modeling and the impact of those rules on the quality of the analysis models. A claim is also made that the measures, "defined to characterize restriction rules and the quality of [derived] class and sequence diagrams[,] can be reused to perform similar experiments in the future, either with RUCM or other approaches." Furthermore, the design and analysis of the experiment itself are reported in detail, thus facilitating future replications and comparisons with similar experiments. The paper begins with an explanation of the use case template and the related 26 restriction rules, followed by a description of the planning of the experiment. The authors present the results of the experiment and their analysis, identify threats to validity, and discuss practical limitations. The paper concludes with a review of related work. The paper will be of interest to software engineering students and researchers interested in experimental approaches to the evaluation of modeling technology, and practicing software engineers looking for more systematic ways to conduct use case modeling and derive related analysis models. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
      ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology  Volume 22, Issue 1
      February 2013
      229 pages
      ISSN:1049-331X
      EISSN:1557-7392
      DOI:10.1145/2430536
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 March 2013
      • Accepted: 1 October 2011
      • Revised: 1 June 2011
      • Received: 1 September 2010
      Published in tosem Volume 22, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader