Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review

Abstract

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) was created on the basis of expert opinion and has now become accepted as the ‘standard’ object‐oriented modelling notation. Our objectives were to determine how widely the notations of the UML, and their usefulness, have been studied empirically, and to identify which aspects of it have been studied in most detail. We undertook a mapping study of the literature to identify relevant empirical studies and to classify them in terms of the aspects of the UML that they studied. We then conducted a systematic literature review, covering empirical studies published up to the end of 2008, based on the main categories identified. We identified 49 relevant publications, and report the aggregated results for those categories for which we had enough papers— metrics, comprehension, model quality, methods and tools and adoption. Despite indications that a number of problems exist with UML models, researchers tend to use the UML as a ‘given’ and seem reluctant to ask questions that might help to make it more effective. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Using mapping studies as the basis for further research – A participant-observer case study

“…Mapping studies may also be of benefit to practitioners indirectly as the basis of subsequent SLRs or by being used as the basis for improved text books and standards, but again there is currently no evidence to support these suggestions. In fact, contradicting our previous speculation, the follow-on study that came closest to an SLR offered recommendations only to researchers [15].…”

“…Although at the extreme, mapping studies and systematic reviews have rather different goals, there is often an overlap (see for example, [14] which although the paper is mainly a mapping study also includes an assessment of the outcomes of some papers in one of the categories). Some systematic reviews include a classification system to organise relevant literature followed by a more detailed description of the research within each category (see for example [15] which has mapping study-like research questions but performs a series of aggregations for sets of papers in various different categories).…”

Can icons enhance requirements engineering work?

“…In fact, the requirement artifacts have to be easily understandable to all participants in order to avoid future misunderstandings. UML is useful for capturing important aspects of requirements; however, it manifests the inconsistency of models across different viewpoints and the inconsistent interpretation of the models (Budgen et al, 2011). Even among experts, ill-defined syntax in UML can be a major problem.…”

ProMeTA: a taxonomy for program metamodels in program reverse engineering

“…c). Elements of "grey" literature that are not published by trusted, well-known publishers, and do not use a well-defined referee process (Budgen et al 2011). d).…”