research-article

How are UML class diagrams built in practice? A usability study of two UML tools: : Magicdraw and Papyrus

Authors:

Jordi CabotAuthors Info & Claims

Volume 67, Issue C

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2019.103363

Published: 01 January 2020 Publication History

Highlights

•

This paper analyzes how UML class diagrams are built by analyzing 12 h of video recordings of students using MagicDraw and Papyrus to draw example class diagrams in a controlled experiment. To deepen the analysis, an analytical study comparing the efficiency of both tools also has been carried out.

•

There are no significant differences regarding MagicDraw and Papyrus in terms of modeling strategy, modeling effort and modeling obstacles.

•

However, both tools share a common set of modeling obstacles that could be fixed to provide a better modeling experience.

•

Several improving suggestions are discussed in the paper.

Abstract

Software modeling is a key activity in software development, especially when following any kind of Model Driven Software Engineering (MDSE) process. In this context, standard modeling languages, like the Unified Modeling Language (UML), and tools for supporting the modeling activities become essential.

The aim of this study is to analyze how modelers build UML models and how good modeling tools are in supporting this task. Our goal is to draw some useful lessons that help to improve the (UML) modeling process both by recommending changes on the tools themselves and on how UML is taught so that theory and practice of UML modeling are better aligned.

Our study employs two research approaches. The main one is an empirical experiment (which analyzes screen recordings registered by undergraduate students during the construction of a UML class diagram). An analytical analysis complements the previous experiment. The study focuses on the most frequent type of UML diagram, the class diagram, and on two tools widely used by the modeling community: MagicDraw and Papyrus.

References

[1]

M. Brambilla, J. Cabot, M. Wimmer, Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice, 1st, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2012.

[2]

R. Acerbis, A. Bongio, M. Brambilla, M. Tisi, S. Ceri, E. Tosetti, Developing eBusiness Solutions with a Model Driven Approach: The Case of Acer EMEA, Web Engineering, 7th International Conference, ICWE 2007, Como, Italy, July 16-20, 2007, Proceedings, 2007, pp. 539–544.

[3]

R.B. France, A. Evans, K. Lano, B. Rumpe, The UML as a formal modeling notation, Comput. Stand. Interf. 19 (7) (1998) 325–334.

[4]

L.T.W. Agner, T.C. Lethbridge, A survey of tool use in modeling education, 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2017, Austin, TX, USA, September 17-22, 2017, 2017, pp. 303–311.

[5]

M. Auer, L. Meyer, S. Biffl, Explorative UML modeling - comparing the usability of UML tools, ICEIS 2007 - Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Volume EIS, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, June 12-16, 2007, 2007, pp. 466–473.

[6]

A.E. Bobkowska, K. Reszke, Usability of UML modeling tools, Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies, 2005, pp. 75–86.

[7]

M.R.V. Chaudron, W. Heijstek, A. Nugroho, How effective is UML modeling ? - an empirical perspective on costs and benefits, Softw. Syst. Model. 11 (4) (2012) 571–580.

[8]

I. Davies, P.F. Green, M. Rosemann, M. Indulska, S. Gallo, How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice?, Data Knowl. Eng. 58 (3) (2006) 358–380.

Digital Library

[9]

B. Dobing, J. Parsons, How UML is used, Commun. ACM 49 (5) (2006) 109–113.

[10]

H. Eichelberger, Y. Eldogan, K. Schmid, A comprehensive survey of UML compliance in current modelling tools, Software Engineering 2009: Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik 02.-06.03. 2009 in Kaiserslautern, 2009, pp. 39–50.

[11]

Heena, R. Garg, A comparative study of UML tools, International Conference on Advances in Computing and Artificial Intelligence, ACAI ’11, Rajpura/Punjab, India - July 21, - 22, 2011, 2011, pp. 1–4.

[12]

L. Khaled, A comparison between UML tools, 2009 Second International Conference on Environmental and Computer Science, ICECS 2009, Dubai, UAE, 28–30 December 2009, 2009, pp. 111–114.

[13]

M. Petre, UML in practice, 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’13, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18–26, 2013, 2013, pp. 722–731.

[14]

J. Recker, “Modeling with tools is easier, believe me” - The effects of tool functionality on modeling grammar usage beliefs, Inf. Syst. 37 (3) (2012) 213–226.

[15]

G. Reggio, M. Leotta, F. Ricca, D. Clerissi, What are the used UML diagrams? A preliminary survey, Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modeling co-located with 16th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2013), Miami, USA, October 1, 2013., 2013, pp. 3–12.

[16]

S.A. Safdar, M.Z. Iqbal, M.U. Khan, Empirical evaluation of UML modeling tools-a controlled experiment, Modelling Foundations and Applications - 11th European Conference, ECMFA 2015, Held as Part of STAF 2015, L’Aquila, Italy, July 20–24, 2015. Proceedings, 2015, pp. 33–44.

[17]

K. Siau, P. Loo, Identifying difficulties in learning UML, IS Manag. 23 (3) (2006) 43–51.

[18]

B. Dobing, J. Parsons, How UML is used, Commun. ACM 49 (5) (2006) 109–113.

[19]

C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M.C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, Experimentation in Software Engineering, Springer, 2012.

[20]

F. Ricca, M.D. Penta, M. Torchiano, P. Tonella, M. Ceccato, How developers’ experience and ability influence web application comprehension tasks supported by UML stereotypes: A series of four experiments, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 36 (1) (2010) 96–118.

[21]

M. Torchiano, F. Ricca, P. Tonella, Empirical comparison of graphical and annotation-based re-documentation approaches, IET Softw. 4 (1) (2010) 15–31.

[22]

A. Yamashita, F. Petrillo, F. Khomh, Y.-G. Guhneuc, Developer Interaction Traces backed by IDE Screen Recordings from Think aloud Sessions, MSR 2018 - 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, co-located with ICSE 2018 in Gothenburg, Sweden., 2018, pp. 50–53.

[23]

G.C. Murphy, M. Kersten, L. Findlater, How Are Java Software Developers Using the Eclipse IDE?, IEEE Softw. 23 (4) (2006) 76–83.

[24]

K. Thulasiraman, M.N. Swamy, Graphs: Theory and Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

[25]

B.E. John, D.E. Kieras, Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique?, ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 3 (4) (1996) 287–319.

[26]

D. E. Kieras, Using the Keystroke-Level Model to Estimate Execution Times, University of Michigan 555 (2001).

[27]

L. Kuzniarz, M. Staron, Best practices for teaching UML based software development, Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference, MoDELS 2005 International Workshops, Doctoral Symposium, Educators Symposium, Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2–7, 2005, Revised Selected Papers, 2005, pp. 320–332.

[28]

D. Aguilera, C. Gómez, A. Olivé, A complete set of guidelines for naming UML conceptual schema elements, Data Knowl. Eng. 88 (2013) 60–74.

Cited By

Savary-Leblanc MLe Pallec XGérard S(2024)Understanding the need for assistance in software modeling: interviews with expertsSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-023-01104-623:1(103-135)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-023-01104-6
Bucchiarone ASavary-Leblanc MLe Pallec XBruel JCicchetti ACabot JGérard S(2023)Gamifying model-based engineeringScience of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2023.102974230:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.scico.2023.102974
David IAslam KMalavolta ILago P(2023)Collaborative Model-Driven Software Engineering — A systematic survey of practices and needs in industryJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111626199:COnline publication date: 1-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111626
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

How are UML class diagrams built in practice? A usability study of two UML tools: Magicdraw and Papyrus

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Formalization of UML diagrams and their consistency verification: A Z notation based approach
ISEC '08: Proceedings of the 1st India software engineering conference

In this paper, we have suggested a methodology for formalizing some of the commonly used UML diagrams that are used in different phases of software development in Z notation, establish their relationship and then represent the "formalized" diagrams ...
UML diagram refinement (focusing on class- and use case diagrams)
ICSE '17: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering

Large and complicated UML models are not useful, because they are difficult to understand. This problem can be solved by using several diagrams of the same system at different levels of abstraction. Unfortunately, UML does not define an explicit set of ...
Generating operation specifications from UML class diagrams: A model transformation approach

One of the more tedious and complex tasks during the specification of conceptual schemas (CSs) is modeling the operations that define the system behavior. This paper aims to simplify this task by providing a method that automatically generates a set of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computer Standards & Interfaces

Computer Standards & Interfaces Volume 67, Issue C

Jan 2020

41 pages

ISSN:0920-5489

Issue’s Table of Contents

Elsevier B.V.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 January 2020

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Savary-Leblanc MLe Pallec XGérard S(2024)Understanding the need for assistance in software modeling: interviews with expertsSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-023-01104-623:1(103-135)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-023-01104-6
Bucchiarone ASavary-Leblanc MLe Pallec XBruel JCicchetti ACabot JGérard S(2023)Gamifying model-based engineeringScience of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2023.102974230:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.scico.2023.102974
David IAslam KMalavolta ILago P(2023)Collaborative Model-Driven Software Engineering — A systematic survey of practices and needs in industryJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111626199:COnline publication date: 1-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111626
Doostali SBabamir SJavani M(2023)Using a process algebra interface for verification and validation of UML statechartsComputer Standards & Interfaces10.1016/j.csi.2023.10373986:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.csi.2023.103739
Silva MTeixeira LSilva AGomes GBarreto LGadelha BConte T(2022)Developers in focus! Developer Experience Analysis in a Collaborative Modeling ToolProceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3555228.3555247(68-77)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555228.3555247
Savary-Leblanc MPallec XKühn TSousa V(2022)Interactive highlighting for digital UML class diagramsProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3550356.3561557(247-256)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3550356.3561557
Zöllner CAdriano CWietheger SLambers LGiese HKühn TSousa V(2022)Tool support for the teaching of state-based behavior modelingProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3550356.3556501(87-94)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3550356.3556501

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents