Advertisement

Unified Modeling Language: The Teen Years and Growing Pains

  • John Erickson
  • Keng Siau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8016)

Abstract

Unified Modeling Language (UML) is adopted by the Object Management Group as a standardized general-purpose modeling language for object-oriented software engineering. Despite its status as a standard, UML is still in a development stage and many studies have highlighted its weaknesses and challenges - including those related to human factor issues. Further, UML has grown considerably more complex since its inception. This paper traces the history of Unified Modeling Language (UML) from its formation to its current state and discusses the current state of the UML language. The paper first introduces UML and its various diagrams, and discusses its characteristics and features. The paper then looks at UML’s strengths, challenges, and possible future development. The human factor issues with using UML are discussed and elaborated. Potential research questions related to UML are also highlighted.

Keywords

Unified Modeling Language Human Factors Systems Analysis and Design Object Orientation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ambler, S.: How the UML Models Fit Together (2000), http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2000/003/003z/003z1.htmp?topic=uml
  2. 2.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks, F.: No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: Understanding the Role of Use Cases in UML: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Database Management 11(4), 28–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, B.: How UML is Used. Communications of the ACM 49(5), 109–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duddy, K.: UML2 Must Enable a Family of Languages. Communications of the ACM 45(11), 73–75 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Theoretical and Practical Complexity of Modeling Methods. Communications of the ACM 50(8), 46–51 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Kobryn, C.: What to Expect from UML 2.0. SD Times (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lago, P.: Rendering Distributed Systems in UML. In: Siau, K., Halpin, T. (eds.) Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design, and Development Issues. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mellor, S.: Make Models Be Assets. Communications of the ACM 45(11), 76–78 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller, J.: What UML Should Be. Communications of the ACM 45(11), 67–69 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pilone, D., Pitman, N.: UML 2.0 in a Nutshell. O’Reilly Media (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pooley, R., Stevens, P.: Using UML: Software Engineering with Objects and Components. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Harlow (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rossi, M., Brinkkemper, S.: Complexity Metrics for Systems Development Methods and Techniques. Information Systems 21(2), 209–227 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Selic, B., Ramackers, G., Kobryn, C.: Evolution, Not Revolution. Communications of the ACM 45(11), 70–72 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siau, K., Cao, Q.: Unified Modeling Language - A Complexity Analysis. Journal of Database Management 12(1), 26–34 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siau, K., Erickson, J., Lee, L.: Theoretical versus Practical Complexity: The Case of UML. Journal of Database Management 16(3), 40–57 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siau, K., Lee, L.: Are Use Case and Class Diagrams Complementary in Requirements Analysis? – An Experimental Study on Use Case and Class Diagrams in UML. Requirements Engineering 9(4), 229–237 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siau, K., Loo, P.: Identifying Difficulties in Learning UML. Information Systems Management 23(3), 43–51 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siau, K., Halpin, T.: Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design, and Development Issues. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siau, K., Tan, X.: Using Cognitive Mapping Techniques to Supplement UML and UP in Information Requirements Determination. Journal of Computer Information Systems 46(5), 59–66 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siau, K., Tian, Y.: A Semiotics Analysis of UML Graphical Notations. Requirements Engineering 14(1), 15–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sieber, T., Siau, K., Nah, F., Sieber, M.: SAP Implementation at the University of Nebraska. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications 2(1), 41–72 (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tan, X., Alter, S., Siau, K.: Using Service Responsibility Tables to Supplement UML in Analyzing e-Service Systems. Decision Support Systems 51(3), 350–360 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhao, L., Siau, K.: Component-Based Development Using UML. Communications of the AIS 9, 207–222 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Erickson
    • 1
  • Keng Siau
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Management, College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Business & Information TechnologyMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations