O-Notation

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 21526788 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Katherine Sward - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Thompsoncheryl Bagley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Cheryl Bagley Thompson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Andrew J. Kompanek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Reconciling the needs of architectural description with object-modeling notations
    Science of Computer Programming, 2002
    Co-Authors: David Garlan, Shang-wen Cheng, Andrew J. Kompanek
    Abstract:

    Complex software systems require expressive notations for representing their software architectures. Two competing paths have emerged. One is to use a specialized notation for architecture, an architecture description language (ADL). The other is to adapt a general-purpose modeling notation, such as UML. The latter has a number of benefits, including familiarity to developers, close mapping to implementations, and commercial tool support. However, it remains an open question as to how best to use object-oriented notations for architectural description, and, indeed, whether they are sufficiently expressive, as currently defined. In this paper, we take a systematic look at these questions, examining the space of possible mappings from ADLs into UML. Specifically, we describe (a) the principal strategies for representing architectural structure in UML; (b) the benefits and limitations of each strategy; and (c) aspects of architectural description that are intrinsically difficult to model in UML using the strategies.

  • reconciling the needs of architectural description with object modeling notations
    Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000
    Co-Authors: David Garlan, Andrew J. Kompanek
    Abstract:

    Complex software systems require expressive notations for representing their software architectures. Two competing paths have emerged. One is to use a specialized notation for architecture - or architecture description language (ADL). The other is to adapt a general-purpose modeling notation, such as UML. The latter has a number of benefits, including familiarity to developers, close mapping to implementations, and commercial tool support. However, it remains an open question as to how best to use object-oriented notations for architectural description, and, indeed, whether they are sufficiently expressive, as currently defined. In this paper we take a systematic look at these questions, examining the space of possible mappings from ADLs into object notations. Specifically, we describe (a) the principle strategies for representing architectural structure in UML; (b) the benefits and limitations of each strategy; and (c) aspects of architectural description that are intrinsically difficult to model in UML using the strategies.

Con Menictas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • making sense of business process descriptions an experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations
    Journal of Systems and Software, 2012
    Co-Authors: Avner Ottensooser, Jan Mendling, Alan Fekete, Hajo A Reijers, Con Menictas
    Abstract:

    How effective is a notation in conveying the writer's intent correctly? This paper identifies understandability of design notations as an important aspect which calls for an experimental comparison. We compare the success of university students in interpreting business process descriptions, for an established graphical notation (BPMN) and for an alternative textual notation (based on written use-cases). Because a design must be read by diverse communities, including technically trained professionals such as developers and business analysts, as well as end-users and stakeholders from a wider business setting, we used different types of participants in our experiment. Specifically, we included those who had formal training in process description, and others who had not. Our experiments showed significant increases by both groups in their understanding of the process from reading the textual model. This was not so for the graphical model, where only the trained readers showed significant increases. This finding points at the value of educating readers of graphical descriptions in that particular notation when they become exposed to such models in their daily work.