Does the Level of Detail of UML Models Affect the Maintainability of Source Code?
This paper presents an experiment carried out as a pilot study to obtain a first insight into the influence of the quality of UML models on the maintenance of the corresponding source code. The quality of the UML models is assessed by studying the amount of information they contain as measured through a level of detail metric. The experiment was carried out with 11 Computer Science students from the University of Leiden. The results obtained indicate a slight tendency towards obtaining better results when using low level of detail UML models, which contradicts our expectations based on previous research found in literature. Nevertheless, we are conscious that the results should be considered as preliminary results given the low number of subjects that participated in the experiment. Further replications of this experiment are planned with students and professionals in order to obtain more conclusive results.
KeywordsUML maintenance empirical studies controlled experiment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Van Vliet, H.: Software Engineering: Principles and Practices, 3rd edn. Wiley (2008)Google Scholar
- 2.OMG. The Unified Modeling Language. Documents associated with UML Version 2.3 (2010), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3
- 5.Fernández-Sáez, A.M., Genero, M., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Empirical studies on the influence of UML in software maintenance tasks: A systematic literature review. Submitted to Science of Computer Programming - Special issue on Software Evolution, Adaptability and Maintenance. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
- 7.Karahasanovic, A., Thomas, R.: Difficulties Experienced by Students in Maintaining Object-Oriented Systems: an Empirical Study. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Computing Education Conference, ACE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Juristo, N., Moreno, A.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001)Google Scholar
- 10.Wohlin, C., et al.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: an Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publisher (2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Jedlitschka, A., Ciolkowoski, M., Pfahl, D.: Reporting Experiments in Software Engineering. In: Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
- 14.Eriksson, H.E., et al.: UML 2 Toolkit. Wiley (2004) Google Scholar
- 15.Verelst, J.: The Influence of Abstraction on the Evolvability of Conceptual Models of Information Systems. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
- 17.ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 25000: Software Engineering, in Software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRe), International Organization for Standarization (2008)Google Scholar
- 18.Kirk, R.E.: Experimental Design. Procedures for the Behavioural Sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company (1995)Google Scholar
- 21.Höst, M., Regnell, B., Wholin, C.: Using students as subjects - a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. In: 4th Conference on Empirical Assessment and Evaluation in Software Engineering (2000)Google Scholar
- 22.Oppenheim, A.N.: Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Pinter Publishers (1992)Google Scholar
- 23.Conover, W.J.: Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley (1998)Google Scholar
- 24.Winer, B.J., Brown, D.R., Michels, K.M.: Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 3rd edn. Mc Graw Hill Series in Psychology (1991)Google Scholar
- 25.SPSS, SPSS 12.0, Syntax Reference Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA (2003)Google Scholar