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
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

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

verfasst von : Stephan Seifermann, Henning Groenda

Erschienen in: Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

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.

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 "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

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
Nächstes Kapitel Using Workflows to Automate Activities in MDE Tools
Fußnoten
Literatur
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.
Harris, T.: Create UML diagrams online in seconds, no special tools needed (2015). http://​yuml.​me. Accessed 14 Aug 2015
37.
Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is used. Commun. ACM 49, 109–113 (2006)CrossRef
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.
Metadaten
Titel
Survey on the Applicability of Textual Notations for the Unified Modeling Language
verfasst von
Stephan Seifermann
Henning Groenda
Copyright-Jahr
2017
Buch
Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development

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

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

Copyright-Jahr: 2017

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