Unified modeling language: Theoretical and practical complexity
Systems development methods have become more complex, concurrently with today’s systems. UML (Unified Modeling Language) has been criticized for its complexity, for those learning and using it. Using Rossi and Brinkkemper’s (1996) metrics, Siau and Cao, (2001) completed a complexity analysis of UML...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2003
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/9710 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Systems development methods have become more complex, concurrently with today’s systems. UML (Unified Modeling Language) has been criticized for its complexity, for those learning and using it. Using Rossi and Brinkkemper’s (1996) metrics, Siau and Cao, (2001) completed a complexity analysis of UML and other modeling techniques, finding that UML is more complex than other techniques. Siau, Erickson and Lee (2002) argued that Rossi and Brinkkemper’s metrics presentthe theoretical maximum, as opposed to a practical complexity, which must be less than the maximum. Therefore, Siau and Cao’s UML complexity analysis represents the theoretical complexity of UML. The current research proposes that a subset of UML (a kernel) composed of the most commonly used constructs, would more closely represent the complexity that practitioners face when using the language. A Delphi study is conducted using practitioners as experts, in an attempt to identify a use-based UML kernel and UML’s practical complexity. |
|---|