Skip to main content

Comparing UML-Based and DSL-Based Modeling from Subjective and Objective Perspectives

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12751))

Abstract

In the last two decades, researchers have conducted several empirical evaluations, involving thousands of subjects, to understand the use of models in software development. The results of these evaluations show that most of the subjects make informal use of the models, which is known as ‘modeling as sketch’. In this paper, we present an experiment that compares UML-based and DSL-based modeling when subjects model a part of a commercial video game. In the comparison, we have used objective and subjective measures, in contrast to other works that focus either on objective measures to evaluate modeling performance or on subjective measures to analyze modeling styles. Our results reveal that subjects underestimate the potential of their own models. Our finding is relevant for the design of future evaluations and for the teaching and adoption of modeling. If users correctly assess their models, they might leverage their potential as programs.

Partially supported by MINECO under the Project ALPS (RTI2018-096411-B-I00).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Learn more of Kromaia DSL at: https://youtu.be/Vp3Zt4qXkoY.

References

  1. Agner, L.T.W., Soares, I.W., Stadzisz, P.C., SimãO, J.M.: A Brazilian survey on UML and model-driven practices for embedded software development. J. Syst. Softw. 86(4), 997–1005 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akdur, D., Garousi, V., Demirörs, O.: A survey on modeling and model-driven engineering practices in the embedded software industry. J. Syst. Archit. 91, 62–82 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ampatzoglou, A., Stamelos, I.: Software engineering research for computer games: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(9), 888–901 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anda, B., Hansen, K., Gullesen, I., Thorsen, H.K.: Experiences from introducing UML-based development in a large safety-critical project. Empirical Softw. Eng. 11(4), 555–581 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernardino, M., Rodrigues, E.M., Zorzo, A.F.: Performance testing modeling: an empirical evaluation of DSL and UML-based approaches. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1660–1665 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blasco, D., Font, J., Zamorano, M., Cetina, C.: An evolutionary approach for generating software models: the case of Kromaia in game software engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 171, 110804 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Budgen, D., Burn, A.J., Brereton, O.P., Kitchenham, B.A., Pretorius, R.: Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review. Softw. Pract. Exp. 41(4), 363–392 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chaudron, M.R., Heijstek, W., Nugroho, A.: How effective is UML modeling? Softw. Syst. Model. 11(4), 571–580 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, J.: Statistical Power for the Social Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Hillsdale (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Lucia, A., Gravino, C., Oliveto, R., Tortora, G.: An experimental comparison of ER and UML class diagrams for data modelling. Empirical Softw. Engi. 15(5), 455–492 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dean, A., Voss, D., Draguljić, D., et al.: Design and Analysis of Experiments, vol. 1. Springer, New York (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/b97673

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Domingo, Á., Echeverría, J., Pastor, Ó., Cetina, C.: Evaluating the benefits of model-driven development. In: Dustdar, S., Yu, E., Salinesi, C., Rieu, D., Pant, V. (eds.) CAiSE 2020. LNCS, vol. 12127, pp. 353–367. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49435-3_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gorschek, T., Tempero, E., Angelis, L.: On the use of software design models in software development practice: an empirical investigation. J. Syst. Softw. 95, 176–193 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grossman, M., Aronson, J.E., McCarthy, R.V.: Does UML make the grade? insights from the software development community. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(6), 383–397 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Karac, E.I., Turhan, B., Juristo, N.: A Controlled Experiment with Novice Developers on the impact of task description granularity on software quality in test-driven development. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2920377

  19. Kosar, T., Gaberc, S., Carver, J.C., Mernik, M.: Program comprehension of domain-specific and general-purpose languages: replication of a family of experiments using integrated development environments. Empirical Softw. Eng. 23(5), 2734–2763 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marko, N.C., et al.: Model-based engineering for embedded systems in practice. In: Research Reports in Software Engineering and Management, pp. 1–48 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003 Proceedings, p. 79 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mussbacher, G., et al.: The relevance of model-driven engineering thirty years from now. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 183–200. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Otero, M.C., Dolado, J.J.: Evaluation of the comprehension of the dynamic modeling in UML. Inf. Softw. Technol. 46(1), 35–53 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pastor, O., Molina, J.C.: Model-Driven Architecture in Practice: A Software Production Environment Based on Conceptual Modeling. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71868-0

  25. Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D.: OPM vs. UML-experimenting with comprehension and construction of web application models. Empirical Softw. Eng. 10(1), 57–80 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Staron, M.: Adopting model driven software development in industry – a case study at two companies. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MODELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 57–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11880240_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Störrle, H.: How are conceptual models used in industrial software development? a descriptive survey. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 160–169 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vegas, S., Apa, C., Juristo, N.: Crossover designs in software engineering experiments: benefits and perils. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 42(2), 120–135 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. West, B.T., Welch, K.B., Galecki, A.T.: Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide Using Statistical Software. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2

  31. Zendler, A., Pfeiffer, T., Eicks, M., Lehner, F.: Experimental comparison of coarse-grained concepts in UML, OML, and TOS. J. Syst. Softw. 57(1), 21–30 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to África Domingo , Jorge Echeverría , Óscar Pastor or Carlos Cetina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Domingo, Á., Echeverría, J., Pastor, Ó., Cetina, C. (2021). Comparing UML-Based and DSL-Based Modeling from Subjective and Objective Perspectives. In: La Rosa, M., Sadiq, S., Teniente, E. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12751. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79382-1_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79382-1_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-79381-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-79382-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics