Definition of the Criteria for Layout of the UML Use Case Diagrams

Filipova, Olga; Nikiforova, Oksana

doi:10.2478/acss-2019-0010

Abstract

Nowadays, the topicality and applicability of model-driven development in the object-oriented development approach has increased, so it is important that created models and diagrams display not only the content, but also visually reflect information. Transparent diagram placement that influences work productivity is important for displaying information. Manual layout of diagrams is a time-consuming activity, which can also be ineffective, so in this paper the application of UML use case automatic layout is reviewed. The paper also examines the requirements of use case diagrams and placement criteria, which will serve as a basis for the creation of an automatic use case diagram layout algorithm.

References

[1] M. Guo, C. Zhang, and F. Wang, “What is the Further Evidence about UML? - A Systematic Literature Review” in 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Workshops (APSECW), 2017, pp. 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSECW.2017.2810.1109/APSECW.2017.28
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[2] M. Seidl, M. Scholz, C. Huemer, and G. Kappel, Introduction. In: UML @ Classroom. Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 206. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12742-2_110.1007/978-3-319-12742-2_1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[3] A. Galapovs, and O. Nikiforova, “UML Diagram Layouting: the State of the Art”, Computer Science. Applied Computer Systems, vol. 44, no. 1, 2012, pp. 101–108. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10143-011-0027-010.2478/v10143-011-0027-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[4] S. Tilley, and S. Huang, “A qualitative assessment of the efficacy of UML diagrams as a form of graphical documentation in aiding program understanding”, SIGDOC: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Documentation, ACM Press, 2003, pp. 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1145/944905.94490810.1145/944905.944908
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[5] A. Galapovs, and O. Nikiforova, “Several Issues on the Definition of Algorithm for the Layout of the UML Class Diagram”, Proceedings of MDA&MDSD 2011, 3rd International Workshop on Model Driven Architecture and Modeling Driven Software Development In conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. Lisbon: SciTePress, pp. 68–78, 2011.10.5220/0003582200680078
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[6] O. Nikiforova, D. Ahilcenoka, D. Ungurs, K. Gusarovs, and L. Kozacenko, “Several Issues on the Layout of the UML Sequence and Class Diagram”, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, ICSEA, October 12–16, 2014, pp. 40–47. Available from http://www.thinkmind.org/
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[7] O. Nikiforova, S. Putintsev, and D. Ahilcenoka “Analysis of Sequence Diagram Layout in Advanced UML Modelling Tools”, Applied Computer Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, 2016, pp. 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/acss-2016-000510.1515/acss-2016-0005
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[8] O. Nikiforova, and K. Gusarovs, “Comparison of BrainTool to Other UML Modeling and Model Transformation Tools”, AIP Conference Proceedings, International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics ICNAAM 2016, vol. 1863, no. 1, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.499250310.1063/1.4992503
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[9] A. Cockburn, Writing Effective Use Cases. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2001, pp. 304.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[10] I. Jacobson, I. Spence, and B. Kerr, “Use-case 2.0”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 59, no. 5, 2016, pp. 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/289077810.1145/2890778
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[11] S. W. Ambler, The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 201. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051181753310.1017/CBO9780511817533
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[12] H. Störrle, “Diagram Size vs. Layout Flaws: Understanding Quality Factors of UML Diagrams”, in ESEM ‘16 Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Article No. 31, 2016, pp. 10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.296260910.1145/2961111.2962609
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[13] C. Batini, L. Furlani, and E. Nardelly, “What is a Good Diagram? A Pragmatic Approach. In Entity-Relationship Approach: The Use of ER Concept in Knowledge Representation”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, USA, IEEE Computer Society and North-Holland, 1985, pp. 312–319.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[14] C. Kosak, J. Marks, and S. Shieber, “Automating the Layout of Network Diagrams with Specified Visual Organization”, IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 24, no. 3, 1994, pp. 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.27899310.1109/21.278993
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[15] K. Freivalds, and P. Kikusts, “Optimum Layout Adjustment Supporting Ordering Constraints in Graph-Like Diagram Drawing”. Proc. of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, 2001, pp. 43–51.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[16] K. Freivalds, U. Dogrusoz, and P. Kikusts, “Disconnected Graph Layout and the Polyomino Packing Approach,” Proc. of Graph Drawing 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2265, 2002, pp. 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45848-4_3010.1007/3-540-45848-4_30
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[17] G. D. Battista, P. Eades, R. Tamassia, and I. G. Tollis, Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Pearson, 1999.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[18] H. Eichelberger, “Aesthetics of class diagrams”, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, VISSOFT, 2002, pp. 23–31.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[19] M. Eiglsperger, M. Kaufmann, and M. Siebenhaller, “A topology-shape-metrics approach for the automatic layout of UML class diagrams”, Soft Vis’03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, 2003, pp. 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1145/774833.77486010.1145/774833.774860
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[20] D. Sun, and K. Wong, “On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension” 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC’05), 2005, pp. 1–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[21] G. Bist, N. MacKinnon, and S. Murphy, “Sequence diagram presentation in technical documentation”, SIGDOC’04: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Design of Communication, New York, NY, USA, 2004, pp. 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1145/1026533.102656610.1145/1026533.1026566
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[22] T. Poranen, E. Makinen, and J. Nummenmaa, “How to draw a sequence diagram”, Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Programming Languages and Software Tools, SPLST’03, University of Kuopio, Department of Computer Science, 2003, pp. 91–102.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[23] C. D. Schulze, G. Hoops, and R. von Hanxleden, “Automatic Layout and Label Management for Compact UML Sequence Diagrams”, 2018 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), Lisbon, 2018, pp. 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2018.850657110.1109/VLHCC.2018.8506571
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[24] A. Malesevic, D. Brdjanin, and S. Maric, “Tool for automatic layout of business process model represented by UML activity diagram”, Eurocon, 2013, pp. 537–542.10.1109/EUROCON.2013.6625033
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[25] H. Störrle, “On the Impact of Layout Quality to Understanding UML Diagrams: Size Matters”, Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2014, pp. 518–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_3210.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_32
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[26] H. Eichelberger, “Automatic layout of UML use case diagrams”, SoftVis ‘08, Proceedings of the 4th ACM symposium on Software visualization, 2008, pp. 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409720.140973810.1145/1409720.1409738
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[27] K. Sugiyama, S. Tagawa, and M. Toda, “Methods for Visual Understanding of Hierarchical System Structures”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 11, no. 2, 1981, pp. 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1981.430863610.1109/TSMC.1981.4308636
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Definition of the Criteria for Layout of the UML Use Case Diagrams

Abstract

Paradigm

My account