Systematic analysis and evaluation of visual conceptual modeling language notations

D. Bork, D. Karagiannis, Benedikt Pittl
{"title":"Systematic analysis and evaluation of visual conceptual modeling language notations","authors":"D. Bork, D. Karagiannis, Benedikt Pittl","doi":"10.1109/RCIS.2018.8406652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In systems analysis and design it is common to refer to some widely used de-facto industry standards like Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Albeit the wide adoption of such standard modeling languages, only limited research focuses on the techniques in which these standards are specified and the quality they provide. Most research focuses on case studies of applying standards, ways of extending standards to domain-specific requirements, e.g., by means of profiling, or evaluations of single modeling languages, e.g., using questionnaires or semiotic theories. By contrast, this paper critically reflects on the current state of modeling standards with a focus on their graphical representation (notation). The contribution of this paper is threefold: First, a systematic analysis is performed thereby investigating how different modeling standards specify notational aspects. Second, an evaluation is performed by applying Moody's Physics of Notation theory to the identified standards. Third, based on the findings, recommendations are given to improve modeling standard specifications in the future w.r.t. their notational aspects.","PeriodicalId":408651,"journal":{"name":"2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2018.8406652","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

In systems analysis and design it is common to refer to some widely used de-facto industry standards like Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Albeit the wide adoption of such standard modeling languages, only limited research focuses on the techniques in which these standards are specified and the quality they provide. Most research focuses on case studies of applying standards, ways of extending standards to domain-specific requirements, e.g., by means of profiling, or evaluations of single modeling languages, e.g., using questionnaires or semiotic theories. By contrast, this paper critically reflects on the current state of modeling standards with a focus on their graphical representation (notation). The contribution of this paper is threefold: First, a systematic analysis is performed thereby investigating how different modeling standards specify notational aspects. Second, an evaluation is performed by applying Moody's Physics of Notation theory to the identified standards. Third, based on the findings, recommendations are given to improve modeling standard specifications in the future w.r.t. their notational aspects.
视觉概念建模语言符号的系统分析与评价
在系统分析和设计中,通常会引用一些广泛使用的事实行业标准,如统一建模语言(UML)和业务流程模型和符号(BPMN)。尽管这些标准建模语言被广泛采用,但只有有限的研究集中在这些标准所指定的技术和它们提供的质量上。大多数研究集中于应用标准的案例研究,将标准扩展到特定领域需求的方法,例如,通过分析的方法,或单一建模语言的评估,例如,使用问卷调查或符号学理论。相比之下,本文对建模标准的现状进行了批判性的反思,重点关注其图形表示(符号)。本文的贡献有三个方面:首先,进行了系统的分析,从而调查了不同的建模标准如何指定符号方面。其次,通过将穆迪符号物理理论应用于确定的标准来进行评估。第三,基于这些发现,本文给出了改进未来建模标准规范的建议,包括其表示法方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信