{"title":"超越框框和线条:为需求概念模型创建和经验性评估可选的可视化","authors":"S. Liaskos, Teodora Dundjerovic, N. Alothman","doi":"10.1109/ESEM.2017.66","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"[Background]: Conceptual modeling languages have been widely studied in requirements engineering as tools for capturing, representing and reasoning about domain problems. One of these languages, goal models, has been proposed for representing the structure of stakeholder intentions. Like most other conceptual modeling languages, goal models are visualized using box-and-line diagrammatic notations. But is this box-and-line approach the best way for visualizing goals and relationships thereof? Through a series of experimental studies we have recently endeavored to find out. In this presentation, we describe features of our alternative visualization proposals and present experiences gained from our attempts to empirically evaluate them. Central to what we learned is the usefulness of distinguishing between language visualization and intended language semantics and of measuring the degree by which the former serves correct recognition of the latter. Our experience from these studies could be useful for those interested in experimentally-driven conceptual modeling language design.","PeriodicalId":213866,"journal":{"name":"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond Boxes and Lines: Creating and Empirically Evaluating Alternative Visualizations for Requirements Conceptual Models\",\"authors\":\"S. Liaskos, Teodora Dundjerovic, N. Alothman\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ESEM.2017.66\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"[Background]: Conceptual modeling languages have been widely studied in requirements engineering as tools for capturing, representing and reasoning about domain problems. One of these languages, goal models, has been proposed for representing the structure of stakeholder intentions. Like most other conceptual modeling languages, goal models are visualized using box-and-line diagrammatic notations. But is this box-and-line approach the best way for visualizing goals and relationships thereof? Through a series of experimental studies we have recently endeavored to find out. In this presentation, we describe features of our alternative visualization proposals and present experiences gained from our attempts to empirically evaluate them. Central to what we learned is the usefulness of distinguishing between language visualization and intended language semantics and of measuring the degree by which the former serves correct recognition of the latter. Our experience from these studies could be useful for those interested in experimentally-driven conceptual modeling language design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":213866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.66\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.66","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Beyond Boxes and Lines: Creating and Empirically Evaluating Alternative Visualizations for Requirements Conceptual Models
[Background]: Conceptual modeling languages have been widely studied in requirements engineering as tools for capturing, representing and reasoning about domain problems. One of these languages, goal models, has been proposed for representing the structure of stakeholder intentions. Like most other conceptual modeling languages, goal models are visualized using box-and-line diagrammatic notations. But is this box-and-line approach the best way for visualizing goals and relationships thereof? Through a series of experimental studies we have recently endeavored to find out. In this presentation, we describe features of our alternative visualization proposals and present experiences gained from our attempts to empirically evaluate them. Central to what we learned is the usefulness of distinguishing between language visualization and intended language semantics and of measuring the degree by which the former serves correct recognition of the latter. Our experience from these studies could be useful for those interested in experimentally-driven conceptual modeling language design.