Survey on Textual Notations for the Unified Modeling Language

Stephan Seifermann, Henning Groenda

2016

Abstract

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) has become the lingua franca of software description languages. Textual notations of UML are also accessible for visually impaired people and allow a more developer-oriented and compact presentation. There are many textual notations that largely differ in their syntax, coverage of the UML, user editing experience, and applicability in teams due to the lack of a standardized textual notation. The available surveys do not cover the academic state of the art, the editing experience and applicability in teams. This implies heavy effort for evaluating and selecting notations. This survey identifies textual notations for UML that can be used instead of or in combination with graphical notations, e.g. by collaborating teams or in different contexts. We identified and rated the current state of 16 known notations plus 15 notations that were not covered in previous surveys. 20 categories cover the applicability in engineering teams. No single editable textual notation has full UML coverage. The mean coverage is 2.7 diagram types and editing support varies between none and 7 out of 9 categories. The survey facilitates the otherwise unclear notation selection and can reduce selection effort.

References

  1. Auer, M., Tschurtschenthaler, T., and Biffl, S. (2003). A flyweight uml modelling tool for software development in heterogeneous environments. In Proceedings of EUROMICRO'03, pages 267-272. IEEE Computer Society.
  2. Cabot, J. (2015). Modeling languages - Uml Tools. https:// modeling-languages.com/uml-tools. accessed 04.August 2015
  3. Chaves, R. (2015). Textuml toolkit. http://abstratt.github .io/textuml/readme.html. accessed 14. August 2015
  4. Del Nero Grillo, F. and de Mattos Fortes, R. (2014). Tests with blind programmers using awmo: An accessible web modeling tool. In UAHCI'14, pages 104-113.
  5. Dévai, G., Kovács, G. F., and An, Í. (2014). Textual, executable, translatable UML. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling, pages 3-12.
  6. Doi, T., Yoshioka, N., Tahara, Y., and Honiden, S. (2004). Bridging the gap between AUML and implementation using IOM/T. In Proceedings of ProMAS'04, pages 147-162.
  7. Erb, S. (2011). Textual modeling of service effect specifications. http://stephanerb.eu/files/erb2011aTextual Modeling of Service Effect Specifications.pdf. Accessed 04. August 2015.
  8. Feng, H. (2004). DCharts, a formalism for modeling and simulation based design of reactive software systems. Master's thesis, School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
  9. Gheorghies, O. (2015). Metauml - github. https://github .com/ogheorghies/MetaUML. accessed 14. August 2015.
  10. Grönniger, H., Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M., and Völkel, S. (2014). Text-based modeling. CoRR, abs/1409.6623.
  11. Harris, T. (2015). Create uml diagrams online in seconds, no special tools needed. http://yuml.me. accessed 14. August 2015.
  12. He, Y. (2006). Comparison of the modeling languages alloy and UML. In Proceedings of SERP'06,pages 671-677
  13. ISO/IEC 13568:2002 (2002). Information technology - z formal specification notation - syntax, type system and semantics. Standard, International Organization for Standardization.
  14. Jackson, D. (2002). Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 11(2):256-290.
  15. Jouault, F. and Delatour, J. (2014). Towards fixing sketchy UML models by leveraging textual notations: Application to real-time embedded systems. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling, pages 73-82.
  16. Kern, H. (2014). Study of interoperability between metamodeling tools. In Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2014 Federated Conference on, pages 1629-1637.
  17. Khaled, L. (2009). A comparison between uml tools. In ICECS'09, pages 111-114.
  18. Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (version 2.3). EBSE technical report, EBSE-2007-01, Keele University.
  19. Lethbridge, T. (2014). Umple: An open-source tool for easy-to-use modeling, analysis, and code generation. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations Track of MoDELS'14.
  20. Luque, L., Branda¯o, L. O., Tori, R., and Branda¯o, A. A. F. (2014a). Are you seeing this? what is available and how can we include blind students in virtual uml learning activities. In Proceedings of SBIE'14.
  21. Luque, L., Veriscimo, E., Pereira, G., and Filgueiras, L. (2014b). Can we work together? on the inclusion of blind people in uml model-based tasks. In Inclusive Designing, pages 223-233. Springer International Publishing.
  22. Mazanec, M. and Macek, O. (2012). On general-purpose textual modeling languages. In Proceedings of Dateso'12, pages 1-12.
  23. OMG (2013). Action language for foundational uml (alf). http://www.omg.org/spec/ALF/1.0.1/PDF.
  24. OMG (2015a). Unified Modeling Language (UML) - Version 2.5. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/PDF.
  25. OMG (2015b). XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) - Version 2.5.1. http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.5.1/PDF.
  26. Open Source Initiative (2015). Licenses by name. http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical. accessed 04. August 2015.
  27. Roques, A. (2015). Plantuml: Open-source tool that uses simple textual descriptions to draw uml diagrams. http://plantuml.com/. accessed 14. August 2015.
  28. Safdar, S. A., Iqbal, M. Z., and Khan, M. U. (2015). Empirical evaluation of uml modeling toolsa controlled experiment. In Modelling Foundations and Applications, volume 9153 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 33-44. Springer International Publishing.
  29. Spinellis, D. (2003). On the declarative specification of models. IEEE Software, 20(2):94-96.
  30. Vieritz, H., Schilberg, D., and Jeschke, S. (2014). Access to uml diagrams with the hutn. In Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2013/2014, pages 751-755. Springer International Publishing.
  31. Washizaki, H., Akimoto, M., Hasebe, A., Kubo, A., and Fukazawa, Y. (2010). Tcd: A text-based uml class diagram notation and its model converters. In Advances in Software Engineering, volume 117 of Communications in Computer and Information Science, pages 296-302. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  32. Wikipedia (2015). List of unified modeling language tools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of Unified Modeli ng Language tools. accessed 04. August 2015.
  33. Winikoff, M. (2005). Towards making agent UML practical: A textual notation and a tool. In 2005 NASA / DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware (EH 2005), pages 401-412.
  34. Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of EASE'14, pages 38:1- 38:10. ACM.
  35. Zayan, D. O. (2012). Model Evolution: Comparative study between clafer and Textual Uml. http://gsd.uwaterloo .ca/sites/default/files/Model%20Evolution;%20Clafer %20versus%20Textual%20UML.pdf. Project Report.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Seifermann S. and Groenda H. (2016). Survey on Textual Notations for the Unified Modeling Language . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-168-7, pages 28-39. DOI: 10.5220/0005644900280039


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward16,
author={Stephan Seifermann and Henning Groenda},
title={Survey on Textual Notations for the Unified Modeling Language},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2016},
pages={28-39},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005644900280039},
isbn={978-989-758-168-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - Survey on Textual Notations for the Unified Modeling Language
SN - 978-989-758-168-7
AU - Seifermann S.
AU - Groenda H.
PY - 2016
SP - 28
EP - 39
DO - 10.5220/0005644900280039