What are the used Activity Diagram Constructs? - A Survey

Gianna Reggio, Maurizio Leotta, Filippo Ricca, Diego Clerissi

2014

Abstract

UML Activity diagrams offer a very large set of constructs, however many of them seem scarcely used or even their existence is not known. Here, we present a precise view of the usage levels of these constructs by means of a survey, covering preliminarily books, courses, tutorials, and tools about UML. Results show that, among the 47 Activity diagrams constructs, a large majority of them seem to be scarcely used, while, only nine result widely used. This work is part of a larger project aimed at investigating the usage level of the UML diagrams and their constructs, also by means of a personal opinion survey intended for UML users. UML is really a huge notation, and as consequence, on one hand, it is difficult and time consuming to master it, and on the other hand, people tend, naturally, to consider only a part of it; by means of this empirical study we want to assess what are the most/less used UML diagrams/constructs.

References

  1. Budgen, D., Burn, A. J., Brereton, O. P., Kitchenham, B. A., and Pretorius, R. (2011). Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review. Software Practice and Experience, 41(4):363-392.
  2. Di Cerbo, F., Dodero, G., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., and Scanniello, G. (2011). Precise vs. ultra-light activity diagrams - an experimental assessment in the context of business process modelling. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement (PROFES 2011), volume 6759 of LNBIP, pages 291-305. Springer.
  3. Dobing, B. and Parsons, J. (2006). How UML is used. Communications of the ACM, 49(5):109-113.
  4. Erickson, J. and Siau, K. (2007). Can UML be simplified? Practitioner use of UML in separate domains. In Proceedings of 12th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2007), volume 365, pages 81-90. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
  5. Grossman, M., Aronson, J. E., and McCarthy, R. V. (2005). Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community. Information and Software Technology, 47(6):383-397.
  6. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., and Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey Methodology. John Wiley and Sons.
  7. Jacobson, I. (2009). Taking the temperature of UML. Web site blog.ivarjacobson.com/taking-thetemperature-of-uml/.
  8. Kitchenham, B. and Pfleeger, S. (2008). Personal opinion surveys. In Shull, F. and Singer, editors, Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pages 63-92. Springer London.
  9. Leotta, M., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., and Astesiano, E. (2011). Building VECM-based systems with a model driven approach: an experience report. In Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modeling (EESSMod 2011), volume 785, pages 38-47. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
  10. Leotta, M., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., and Astesiano, E. (2012). Towards a lightweight model driven method for developing SOA systems using existing assets. In Proceedings of 14th International Symposium on Web Systems Evolution, WSE 2012, pages 51-60. IEEE.
  11. Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V., and Neple, T. (2009). Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development - a review of literature. Information and Software Technology, 51(12):1646-1669.
  12. OMG (2012). Service oriented architecture Modeling Language (SoaML) Specification Version 1.0.1. Available at www.omg.org/spec/SoaML/1.0.1/PDF.
  13. Petre, M. (2013). Uml in practice. In Proceedings of 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2013, pages 722-731. IEEE.
  14. Reggio, G., Leotta, M., and Ricca, F. (2011a). “Precise is better than light” A document analysis study about quality of business process models. In Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering, EmpiRE 2011, pages 61-68. IEEE.
  15. Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F., and Astesiano, E. (2012). Five styles for modelling the business process and a method to choose the most suitable one. In Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modeling, EESSMod 2012, pages 8:1-8:6. ACM.
  16. Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F., and Clerissi, D. (2013). What are the used UML diagrams? A preliminary survey. In Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modeling, EESSMod 2013. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. To appear.
  17. Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Scanniello, G., Di Cerbo, F., and Dodero, G. (2011b). A precise style for business process modelling: Results from two controlled experiments. In Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2011), volume 6981 of LNCS, pages 138- 152. Springer.
  18. Seidewitz, E. (2012). Uml 2.5: Specification simplification. Presented at “Third Biannual Workshop on Eclipse Open Source Software and OMG Open Specifications”.
  19. Torchiano, M., Penta, M. D., Ricca, F., Lucia, A. D., and Lanubile, F. (2011). Migration of information systems in the italian industry: A state of the practice survey. Information and Software Technology, 53(1):71 - 86.
  20. Torchiano, M., Tomassetti, F., Ricca, F., Tiso, A., and Reggio, G. (2013). Relevance, benefits, and problems of software modelling and model driven techniques a survey in the Italian industry. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(8):2110-2126.
  21. UML Revision Task Force (2011). OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, V2.4.1.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Reggio G., Leotta M., Ricca F. and Clerissi D. (2014). What are the used Activity Diagram Constructs? - A Survey . In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-007-9, pages 87-98. DOI: 10.5220/0004712000870098


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward14,
author={Gianna Reggio and Maurizio Leotta and Filippo Ricca and Diego Clerissi},
title={What are the used Activity Diagram Constructs? - A Survey},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2014},
pages={87-98},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004712000870098},
isbn={978-989-758-007-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - What are the used Activity Diagram Constructs? - A Survey
SN - 978-989-758-007-9
AU - Reggio G.
AU - Leotta M.
AU - Ricca F.
AU - Clerissi D.
PY - 2014
SP - 87
EP - 98
DO - 10.5220/0004712000870098