Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

OPM vs. UML--Experimenting with Comprehension and Construction of Web Application Models

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Object-Process Methodology (OPM), which is a holistic approach to modeling and evolving systems, views objects and processes as two equally important entities that describe the system's structure and behavior in a single model. Unified Modeling Language (UML), which is the standard object-oriented modeling language for software systems, separates the system model into various aspects, each of which is represented in a different view (diagram type).

The exponential growth of the Web and the progress of Internet-based architectures have set the stage for the proliferation of a variety of Web applications, which are classified as hybrids between hypermedia and information systems. Such applications require a modeling approach that is capable of clearly specifying aspects of their architecture, communication, and distributive nature. Since UML and OPM are two candidates for this task, this study has been designed to establish the level of comprehension and the quality of the constructed Web application models using each one of these two approaches.

In the experiment we carried out, third year undergraduate information systems engineering students were asked to respond to comprehension and construction questions about two representative Web application models. The comprehension questions related to the system's structure, dynamics, and distribution aspects. The results suggest that OPM is better than UML in modeling the dynamics aspect of the Web applications. In specifying structure and distribution aspects, there were no significant differences. The results further suggest that the quality of the OPM models students built in the construction part was superior to that of the corresponding UML models.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AOSD. 2003. The Aspect-Oriented Software Development site, http://aosd.net/.

  • Booch, G. 1991. Object-Oriented Design with Applications. Redwood: Benjamin Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conallen, J. 1999. Building Web Applications with UML. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMarco, T. 1978. Structured Analysis and System Specification. New York: Yourdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, D. 1995. Object-process analysis: Maintaining the balance between system structure and behavior. J. Log. Comput. 5(2): 227-249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, D. 2002a. Object-Process Methodology--A Holistic Systems Paradigm. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, D. 2002b. Why significant UML change is unlikely. Commun. ACM 45(11): 82-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, D., Reinhartz-Berger, I., and Sturm, A. 2003. OPCAT--A bimodal CASE tool for object-process based system development. Proc. IEEE/ACM 5th Int. Conf. Enterpr. Inf. Syst. (ICEIS 2003). France, 286-291. Download site: http://www.ObjectProcess.org/.

  • Gilat, D. 2003. A framework for simulation of discrete events systems based on the object-process methodology. Ph.D. Thesis, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.

  • Halpin, T., and Bloesch, A. 1998. A comparison of UML and ORM for data modeling. Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop Eval. Model. Methods Syst. Anal. and Des. (EMMSAD'98). Italy.

  • Harel, D. 1987. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 8: 231-274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillegersberg, J. V., Kumar, K., and Welke, R. J. 1998. Using metamodeling to analyze the fit of object-oriented methods to languages. Proc. 31st Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. (HICSS'98). Hawaii.

  • Kim, Y. G., and March, S. T. 1995. Comparing data modeling formalisms for representing and validating information requirements. Commun. ACM 38(6): 103-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS Systems for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc.

  • Mezini, M., and Lieberherr, K. (1998). Adaptive plug-and-play components for evolutionary software development. Conf. Object-Oriented Program. Syst. Lang. Appl. (OOPSLA'98). Canada, 97-116.

  • OMG. 2002. The Object Management Group site. Unified Modeling Language Specification--Version 1.4. ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/formal/01-09-67.pdf.

  • Otero, M. C., and Dolado, J. J. 2002. An initial experimental assessment of the dynamic modeling in UML. Empir. Softw. Eng. 7: 27-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, M., and Dori, D. 1999. Extending the object-process methodology to handle real-time systems. J. Object-Oriented Program. 11(8): 53-58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, M., and Dori, D. 2000. The model multiplicity problem: Experimenting with real-time specification methods. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 26(8): 742-759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. L. 1981. Petri Nets Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhartz-Berger, I. 2003. Developing web applications with object-oriented approaches and object-process methodology. Ph.D. Thesis, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. http://mis.hevra.haifa.ac.il/∼iris/research/OPMwebThesis.pdf.

  • Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D., and Katz, S. 2002a. OPM/Web--object-process methodology for developing web applications. Ann. Softw. Eng.-Spec. Issue Object-Oriented Web-Based Softw. Eng. 13: 141-161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D., and Katz, S. 2002b. Open reuse of component designs in OPM/Web. Proc. Comput. Softw. Appl. Conf. (COMPSAC'2002). England, 19-26.

  • Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D., and Katz, S. 2003. Modeling code mobility and migration: An OPM/Web approach. Accepted to Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. (IJWET).

  • Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., and Lorenson, W. 1991. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoval, P., and Shiran, S. 1997. Entity-relationship and object-oriented data modeling--An experimental comparison of design quality. Data Knowl. Eng. 21:297-315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siau, K., and Cao, Q. 2001. Unified Modeling Language (UML)--A complexity analysis. J. Database Manage. 12(1): 26-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheijen, G. M. A., and Van Bekkum, J. 1982. NIAM: An information analysis method. In T. W. Olle, et al. (eds.), Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review. North-Holland, 289-318.

  • Yourdon, Y., and Constantine, L. L. 1979. Structured Design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa, Carmel Mountain, Haifa, 31905, Israel

    Iris Reinhartz-Berger

  2. Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa, 32000, Israel

    Dov Dori

Authors
  1. Iris Reinhartz-Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dov Dori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D. OPM vs. UML--Experimenting with Comprehension and Construction of Web Application Models. Empirical Software Engineering 10, 57–80 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMSE.0000048323.40484.e0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMSE.0000048323.40484.e0

Search

Navigation