Abstract
In the world of diagrammatic notations, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) should be of special interest for cognitive studies. On one hand, UML integrates a host of different diagrammatic languages in real engineering use, and thus studying it should be itself extremely interesting. On the other hand, UML is adopted as a standard in software industry, and has already become a standard de facto in object-oriented analysis and design. This property provides a real practical value for UML studies. However, despite its dramatically increasing popularity, UML’s drawbacks are well known and widely criticized. Currently, users and vendors associate their hopes on a better UML with the next version of the standard, UML 2.0, but it is commonly recognized that the problems standing in front of UML 2.0 are extremely hard [3]. So, careful cognitive analysis of UML appears to be an interesting, beneficial and urgent issue in the diagrammatic world.
Supported by Grants 93.315 and 96.0316 from the Latvia Council of Science
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Z. Diskin. Visualization vs. specification in diagrammatic notations: A case study with the UML. Full version of the material in the present poster, ftp://ftp.fis.lv/pub/diskin/Diagrams02.ps, 2001
Z. Diskin, B. Kadish, F. Piessens, and M. Johnson. Universal arrow foundations for visual modeling. In M. Anderson et al, Diagrams’2000: 1st Int. Conf. on the Theory and Applications of Diagrams, Springer LNAI, volume 1889, 2000, pp.345–360.
C. Kobryn. Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? Communications of the ACM, 45(1):107–110, 2002.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Diskin, Z. (2002). Visualization vs. Specification in Diagrammatic Notations: A Case Study with the UML. In: Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., Narayanan, N.H. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2317. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46037-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46037-3_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43561-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46037-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive