TY - JOUR
T1 - The model multiplicity problem
T2 - Experimenting with real-time specification methods
AU - Peleg, Mor
AU - Dori, Dov
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank Professor Ayala Cohen for her professional help in the statistical analysis. The authors also would like to thank the anonymous referees for their insightful comments. This research was supported by the Technion VPR fund.
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - The Object-Process Methodology (OPM) specifies both graphically and textually the system's static-structural and behavioral-procedural aspects through a single unifying model. This model singularity is contrasted with the multimodel approach applied by existing object-oriented system analysis methods. These methods usually employ at least three distinct models for specifying various system aspects-mainly structure, function, and behavior. Object Modeling Technique (OMT), the main ancestor of the Unified Modeling Language (UML), extended with Timed Statecharts, represents a family of such multimodel object-oriented methods. Two major open questions related to model multiplicity vs. model singularity have been 1) whether or not a single model, rather than a combination of several models, enables the synthesis of a better system specification and 2) which of the two alternative approaches yields a specification that is easier to comprehend. In this study, we address these questions through a double-blind controlled experiment. To obtain conclusive results, real-time systems, which exhibit a more complex dynamic behavior than nonrealtime systems were selected as the focus of the experiment. We establish empirically that a single model methodology-OPM-is more effective than a multimodel one-OMT-in terms of synthesis. We pinpoint specific issues in which significant differences between the two methodologies were found. The specification comprehension results show that there were significant differences between the two methods in specific issues.
AB - The Object-Process Methodology (OPM) specifies both graphically and textually the system's static-structural and behavioral-procedural aspects through a single unifying model. This model singularity is contrasted with the multimodel approach applied by existing object-oriented system analysis methods. These methods usually employ at least three distinct models for specifying various system aspects-mainly structure, function, and behavior. Object Modeling Technique (OMT), the main ancestor of the Unified Modeling Language (UML), extended with Timed Statecharts, represents a family of such multimodel object-oriented methods. Two major open questions related to model multiplicity vs. model singularity have been 1) whether or not a single model, rather than a combination of several models, enables the synthesis of a better system specification and 2) which of the two alternative approaches yields a specification that is easier to comprehend. In this study, we address these questions through a double-blind controlled experiment. To obtain conclusive results, real-time systems, which exhibit a more complex dynamic behavior than nonrealtime systems were selected as the focus of the experiment. We establish empirically that a single model methodology-OPM-is more effective than a multimodel one-OMT-in terms of synthesis. We pinpoint specific issues in which significant differences between the two methodologies were found. The specification comprehension results show that there were significant differences between the two methods in specific issues.
KW - Analysis and design methodologies
KW - And empirical evaluation
KW - Experimentation
KW - Object-oriented analysis
KW - Object-process methodology
KW - Quality of analysis
KW - Real-time systems specification
KW - Software engineering
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034244942&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/32.879812
DO - 10.1109/32.879812
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0034244942
SN - 0098-5589
VL - 26
SP - 742
EP - 759
JO - IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
JF - IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
IS - 8
ER -