Le 15-mai-06 à 01:51, Jörn Guy Süß a écrit :
> Precise UMLeers,
> In response to Greg's original post, attached you will find a small
> showing statistics on the growth of UML. If we perceive the UML as a
> (software) system, we will find that its complexity has greatly
> over the years.
This is certainly true.
> This affects usability on a theoretical and practical level.
This is not clear. I tend to agree, but the additions made to UML
were done with the aim to increase practical usability.
Are there serious studies on this topic?
> In other words, with a body of specification that large,
> consistency is
> almost impossible to achieve.
It is clear that the official description of UML (any version)
> In the same vein, practicability is even harder, because lack of
> specification forces implementers to interpret the standard, rather
> adopt it. The result is not UML, but VML - Vendor Modelling Language.
True, but most people don't see this as an obstacle to practical
usability (I do).
> * Abort work on the existing UML standard 2.0.
I disagree: this is the best way to have almost everybody consider
our work as irrelevant.
> * Focus work on well understood, open, and minimal systems, such as
> (the basis for IBM EMF). Start with a class-based abstraction, such as
> Object-Z (One option!)
This just about meta-modelling, not about UML itself.
> * Set up a research-based forum of focus, that is independent of
> the OMG,
> like the OCL Portal
A forum is nice, but why make it independent of OMG? This will only
> * Build minimal metamodels of particular interest for UML's parts,
> their conditions of composition into a new metamodel.
Why not use profiles to define restricted parts of UML?
> This approach could provide the following advantages/ remedy the
> * Research impact is immediate, and the changes made to a commonly
> maintained standard are traceable. The counterexample is the
> current OMG
> process, were the proceedings of the workgroups cannot be observed.
> selected results are published at larger intervals.
This is at it should be -- interested people can have the information
through the members, while publishing all discussions in extenso will
rather confuse most people.
> * Research is rewarding, because contributions can be ascribed to
> institutions and individuals. In the current process, researchers
> may, as in
> the case of the OCL standard, contribute significantly to the work,
> but do
> not receive a mention in the result. As this is uneconomical for the
> researcher in the promotion of their own work, they withdraw from the
> effort, leaving it weakened.
Well, it is still possible to publish individual contributions, but
not as endorsed by OMG.
I don't think this is the main problem.
> * Results are free. In the current situation, OMG publications are
> copyright-protected content of the same-named company.
> Consequently, each
> person that wants to use terms branded by the OMG or reference the
> has to go through a legal process. This stifles innovation. In one
> case known to me, a researcher wanted to produce a public HTML
> version of
> the UML standard, to make it more accessible. The request was
> denied by the
I agree that this is a problem, but not a major one, and the
situation is the same with almost all standard bodies (CEN, CENELEC,
ISO, CCITT, etc.)
> The last argument I would like to add is of a moral nature: If we
> do not
> provide a unifying basis to the UML and MOF, there will be no
> common use as
> explained above. Thus, the biggest shark is going to take the
> smaller fish
> in the waters of modelling tools. Microsoft has already affected a
> change in
> the naming of the UML conference from UML to MODELS. It will not be
> until the UML disappears from public perception and we will have to
> about 'Software Factories', 'DSLs' and their underlying formalisms.
> one of Microsoft's Researchers:
> "So I don't see UML as a central part of the software factory/DSL
> (cmp. http://blogs.msdn.com/stuart_kent/archive/
> 2004/09/29/235482.aspx )
> I hope that model-driven processes will not become intellectual
> capital of
> one institution. Digressing from the OMG-standard to avoid such a
> seems to be a small price to pay.
It this would be the situation, I would agree. But the fact is that
in OMG, there is currently a kind of balance of powers that makes it
reassonably fair, though I agree its mechanisms are (in principle)
Anyway, the first point is to prove that we have some value to offer:
concretely, where would this value be?
Received on Mon 15 May 2006 - 09:52:38 BST