A Controlled Experiment for Evaluating the Comprehensibility of UML Action Languages

Omar Badreddin, Omar Badreddin, Maged Elaasar, Maged Elaasar, Wahab Hamou-Lhadj, Wahab Hamou-Lhadj

Abstract

Action Languages represent an emerging paradigm where modeling abstractions are embedded in code to bridge the gap with visual models, such as UML models. The paradigm is gaining momentum, evident by the growing number of tools and standards that support this paradigm. In this paper, we report on a controlled ex-periment to assess the comprehensibility of those languages and compare it to that of object-oriented (OO) programming languages. We further report on the impact of also having access to the UML notation on the comprehensibility of those languages. Results suggest that action languages are significantly more comprehen-sible than traditional OO languages. Furthermore, there was not a significant improvement in comprehensibil-ity when the UML notation was used along with both OO and action language code. We conclude that action languages are a promising alternative to traditional OO languages for specifying details, yet seem to be as comprehensible as high-level visual models.

References

  1. OMG (2015) Action Language for Foundational UML (Alf), Concrete Syntax for a UML Action Language. Available: http://www.omg.org/spec/ALF/
  2. Mellor, Stephen J., et al. "An action language for UML: proposal for a precise execution semantics." The Unified Modeling Language. «UML»7898: Beyond the Notation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1999. 307-318.
  3. Sunyé, Gerson, et al. "Using UML action semantics for executable modeling and beyond." Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001.
  4. Purchase, Helen C., et al. "Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of UML class diagrams: an empirical study." Proceedings of the 2001 Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation-Volume 9. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2001.
  5. Purchase, Helen C., et al. "UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension." Proceedings of the 2001 Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation-Volume 9. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2001.
  6. Timothy C. Lethbridge, Andrew Forward, Omar Badreddin. Problems and Opportunities for ModelCentric vs. Code-Centric Development: A Survey of Software Professionals, in the proceedings of C2M: EEMDD 2010.
  7. Büttner, Fabian, and Martin Gogolla. "Modular embedding of the object constraint language into a programming language." Formal Methods, Foundations and Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. 124- 139.
  8. Rose, Louis M., et al. "Constructing models with the human-usable textual notation." Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. 249-263.
  9. Object Management Group (OMG). "Concrete Syntax for a UML Action Language RFP", accessed 2012, http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2008-9-9.
  10. Planas, Elena, et al. "Alf-Verifier: an eclipse plugin for verifying Alf/UML executable models." Advances in Conceptual Modeling, 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.378-382.
  11. Chaves, R. "TextUML", accessed 2015, http://abstratt.com/
  12. Perseil, Isabelle. "ALF formal." Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 7.4 (2011): 325-326.
  13. Badreddin, Omar. "Umple: a model-oriented programming language." Software Engineering, 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on. Vol. 2. IEEE, 2010.
  14. Object Management Group (OMG), Concrete Syntax For A UML Action Language: Action Language For Foundational UML (ALF), 2015. Available: http://www.omg.org/spec/ALF/1.0.1.
  15. Mellor, Stephen J., and Marc J. Balcer. Executable UML: a foundation for model-driven architecture. AddisonWesley Professional, 2002.
  16. Dzidek, Wojciech J., Erik Arisholm, and Lionel C. Briand. "A realistic empirical evaluation of the costs and benefits of UML in software maintenance." Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 34.3 (2008): 407-432.
  17. "Umple language online." accessed 2015, www.try.umple.org.
  18. Jarque, Carlos M., and Anil K. Bera. "Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals." Economics Letters 6.3 (1980): 255-259.
  19. S. Mohammad. "From once upon a time to happily ever after: Tracking emotions in novels and fairy tales". 2011. ACL HLT 2011pp. 105.
  20. D. Hendrix, J. H. Cross II and S. Maghsoodloo. "The effectiveness of control structure diagrams in source code comprehension activities". 2002. IEEE Trans.Software Eng.pp. 463-477.
  21. L. C. Briand, C. Bunse, J. W. Daly and C. Differding. "An experimental comparison of the maintainability of object-oriented and structured design documents". 1997. Empirical Software Engineering vol 2, pp.291-312.
  22. Friedenthal, Sanford, Alan Moore, and Rick Steiner. A practical guide to SysML: the systems modeling language. Access Online via Elsevier, 2011.
  23. Badreddin, Omar. Model Orientation Experiment Specification. Accessed 2014. Available: http://obahy.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/experimentspecification.docx.
  24. Chin, David N. "Empirical evaluation of user models and user-adapted systems." User modeling and useradapted interaction 11.1-2 (2001): 181-194.
  25. Badreddin, Omar, and Timothy C. Lethbridge. "Model oriented programming: Bridging the code-model divide." Modeling in Software Engineering (MiSE), 2013 5th International Workshop on. IEEE, 2013.
  26. Badreddin, Omar Bahy, Andrew Forward, and Timothy C. Lethbridge. "Model oriented programming: an empirical study of comprehension." CASCON. 2012.
  27. Badreddin, Omar. "Empirical evaluation of research prototypes at variable stages of maturity." User Evaluations for Software Engineering Researchers (USER), 2013 2nd International Workshop on. IEEE, 2013.
  28. Rumpe, Bernhard. "Executable Modeling with UML. A Vision or a Nightmare?." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6597 (2014).
  29. Schamai, Wladimir, Peter Fritzson, and Chris JJ Paredis. "Translation of UML state machines to Modelica: Handling semantic issues." Simulation (2013): 0037549712470296.
  30. Planas, Elena, et al. "Alf-Verifier: an eclipse plugin for verifying Alf/UML executable models." Advances in Conceptual Modeling. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. 378-382.
  31. Jedlitschka, Andreas, Marcus Ciolkowski, and Dietmar Pfahl. "Reporting experiments in software engineering." Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer London, 2008. 201-228.
  32. Lazar, C. L., I. Lazar, B. Pârv, S. Motogna, and I. G. Czibula. "Tool Support for fUML Models." Int. J. of Computers, Communications & Control 5, no. 5 (2010): 775-782.
  33. Gemino, Andrew, and Yair Wand. "Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties." Data & Knowledge Engineering 55.3 (2005): 301-326.
  34. Hornbaek, Kasper. "Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research." International journal of human-computer studies64.2 (2006): 79-102.
  35. Badreddin, Omar, Timothy C. Lethbridge, and Andrew Forward. "Investigation and evaluation of UML Action Languages." Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD), 2014 2nd International Conference on. IEEE, 2014.
  36. Burton-Jones, Andrew, and Peter N. Meso. "Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis." Information Systems Research 17.1 (2006): 38-60.
  37. Burton-Jones, Andrew, and Peter Meso. "The effects of decomposition quality and multiple forms of information on novices' understanding of a domain from a conceptual model." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9.12 (2008): 1.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Badreddin O., Elaasar M. and Hamou-Lhadj W. (2016). A Controlled Experiment for Evaluating the Comprehensibility of UML Action Languages . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-168-7, pages 52-64. DOI: 10.5220/0005657700520064


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward16,
author={Omar Badreddin and Maged Elaasar and Wahab Hamou-Lhadj},
title={A Controlled Experiment for Evaluating the Comprehensibility of UML Action Languages},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2016},
pages={52-64},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005657700520064},
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 - A Controlled Experiment for Evaluating the Comprehensibility of UML Action Languages
SN - 978-989-758-168-7
AU - Badreddin O.
AU - Elaasar M.
AU - Hamou-Lhadj W.
PY - 2016
SP - 52
EP - 64
DO - 10.5220/0005657700520064