Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a framework for improving the presentation of Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams, as applied in technical documentation produced at the IBM Toronto Software Laboratory. UML diagrams are a key part of program design. They can enhance understanding of complex programming concepts, and assist in problem analysis and solution design. In turn, UML diagrams can add significant value to documentation, helping the user to understand not only the solution but also the reasons for using that particular solution. Too often, however, UML diagrams are created in isolation by a developer, with little or no thought as to how they will be presented in documentation, be it online, in a PDF file, or in a printed book. This compartmentalization does not allow for the possibility that a diagram that was useful in the design phase of a project will not necessarily bring value to documentation if its stated processes or goals are unclear. Poorly designed UML diagrams can also have a negative impact on both project scheduling and costs. For example, production delays can arise because of increased back-and-forth time among developers, writers, and designers, and translation costs can escalate if a diagram contains text that must be translated.This paper presents a method for ensuring a collaborative process for UML diagram design. It provides specific tasks for each of the three key roles in developing UML diagrams for documentation: program developer, technical writer, and graphic designer. It makes the program developer aware of design principles that might otherwise be overlooked. It shows the technical writer ways to improve the design of the diagram, and offers a method for converting files to a common format that can then be utilized by the graphic designer. Finally, it provides the graphic designer with a methodology for quickly producing a clear, error-free final image that is manageable in size. By following the guidelines presented here, developers, writers, and designers can work together to produce clean, concise UML diagrams that will bring value and clarity to technical information. This clearly defined process will help eliminate miscommunication, shorten development schedules, and reduce production and translation costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".