IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/09-605.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of UML Models

Author

Listed:
  • M. GENERO
  • A. M. FERNANDEZ
  • H. J. NELSON
  • G. POELS
  • M. PIATTINI

Abstract

The quality of conceptual models directly affects the quality of the understanding of the application domain and the quality of the final software products that are ultimately based upon them. The field of research into conceptual modelling research is still young and is still evolving. This paper describes a systematic literature review (SLR) of peer-reviewed conference and journal articles published between 1997 and 2007 on this topic so that we may understand the state-of-the-art and then identify any gaps in current research. Six digital libraries were searched, and 193 papers dealing with the quality of UML models were identified and classified into five dimensions: type of model quality, type of evidence, type of research result, type of diagram and research goal. The results indicate that the field is indeed still young and evolving with a great deal of research dedicated to semantic consistency and to improving the understandability of UML diagrams. However, much more empirical research is needed to develop a theoretical understanding of conceptual model quality. The classification scheme developed in this paper can serve as a guide for both researchers and practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Genero & A. M. Fernandez & H. J. Nelson & G. Poels & M. Piattini, 2009. "A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of UML Models," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 09/605, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:09/605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_09_605.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:09/605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.