Advertisement

On the Requirement from Practice for Meaningful Variability in Visual Notation

  • Dirk van der LindenEmail author
  • Irit Hadar
  • Anna Zamansky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 287)

Abstract

This research-in-progress paper proposes the need for a move towards more meaningful variability of visual notations. Evidence accumulated via an online survey on the requirements practitioners have for visual notations, indicate the need for variability of a modeling language’s visual notation. Widely used modeling languages in practice such as UML and BPMN do not support redesign of the visual notation of core constructs without modifying or extending the underlying abstract syntax and semantics (e.g., UML stereotypes, BPMN extensions). The expressed need to vary commonly used visual notations depending on particular users or contexts, while not changing the underlying modeling language itself, poses a set of research challenges discussed here.

Keywords

Conceptual modeling Requirements Visual notations Variability Concrete syntax Practitioner Empirical study 

References

  1. 1.
    Baar, T.: Correctly defined concrete syntax for visual modeling languages. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MODELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 111–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11880240_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blankenship, J., Dansereau, D.F.: The effect of animated node-link displays on information recall. J. Exp. Educ. 68(4), 293–308 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Designing dialects of enterprise modeling languages with the profiling technique. In: 2015 IEEE 19th International Conference Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC), pp. 60–67. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl. Eng. 58(3), 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fettke, P.: How conceptual modeling is used. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 43 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fondement, F., Baar, T.: Making metamodels aware of concrete syntax. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11581741_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kleppe, A.: A language description is more than a metamodel. In: Fourth International Workshop on Software Language Engineering (ATEM 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Linden, D., Proper, H.A.: Category structure of language types common to conceptual modeling languages. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 317–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43745-2_22 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Linden, D., Van Zee, M.: Insights from a study on decision making in enterprise architecture. In: PoEM (Short Papers), vol. 1497, pp. 21–30 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Linden, D., Zamansky, A., Hadar, I.: How cognitively effective is a visual notation? On the inherent difficulty of operationalizing the physics of notations. In: Schmidt, R., Guédria, W., Bider, I., Guerreiro, S. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2016. LNBIP, vol. 248, pp. 448–462. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39429-9_28 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Linden, D., Zamansky, A., Hadar, I.: On the need for more requirements towards visual notation design of BPMN extensions. In: Caise Radar 2016, University of Ljubljana (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 81 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009). \(<\)GotoISI\(>\)://WOS:000272172800003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matuleviius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. Requirements Eng. 15(2), 141–175 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: an analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-00434-6_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muller, P.-A., Fleurey, F., Fondement, F., Hassenforder, M., Schneckenburger, R., Gérard, S., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Model-driven analysis and synthesis of concrete syntax. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MODELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 98–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11880240_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myers, M.D.: Qualitative research in information systems. Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 21(2), 241–242 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    (OMG) O.M.G.: Unified modeling language (UML), version 2.5 (2015). www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/
  20. 20.
    (OMG) O.M.G.: Meta object facility (MOF) version 2.5.1 (2016). http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.5.1/
  21. 21.
    Robinson, S., Arbez, G., Birta, L.G., Tolk, A., Wagner, G.: Conceptual modeling: definition, purpose and benefits. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 2812–2826. IEEE Press (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saldana, J.: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage, London (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stark, J., Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Systemizing colour for conceptual modeling (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wilmont, I., Hengeveld, S., Barendsen, E., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual modelling. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 74–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk van der Linden
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irit Hadar
    • 1
  • Anna Zamansky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations