Abstract
Analogue to the more familiar notion of coding conventions, modeling conventions attempt to ensure uniformity and prevent common modeling defects. While it has been shown that modeling conventions can decrease defect density, it is currently unclear whether this decreased defect density results in higher model quality, i.e., whether models created with modeling conventions exhibit higher fitness for purpose.In a controlled experiment with 27 master-level computer science students, we evaluated quality differences between UML analysis and design models created with and without modeling conventions. We were unable to discern significant differences w.r.t. the clarity, completeness and validity of the information the model is meant to represent.We interpret our findings as an indication that modeling conventions should guide the analyst in identifying what information to model, as well as how to model it, lest their effectiveness be limited to optimizing merely syntactic quality.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
