Antonio Vallecillo (one of the best information sources for this portal as you may have already noticed 🙂 ) alerts me of the publication of several OMG specifications as 2012 ISO/IEC Standards.
In particular these OMG specifications are now ISO standards:
- ISO/IEC 19507:2012 (OCL 2.3.1)
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57306 - ISO/IEC 19506:2012 (ADM/KDM 1.3)
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=32625 - ISO/IEC 19505-1:2012 (UML 2.4.1 Infrastructure)
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=32624 - ISO/IEC 19505-2:2012 (UML 2.4.1 Superstructure)
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52854 - ISO/IEC 19501-1:2012 (CORBA 3.1.1 Interfaces)
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53349 - ISO/IEC 19500-2:2012 (CORBA 3.1.1 Interoperability)
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53348 - ISO/IEC 19500-3:2012 (CORBA 3.1.1 Components)
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53351
These ISO published versions correspond to the following OMG Formal specifications, which are available without charge to the general public: OCL 2.3.1 , KDM , UML and CORBA
Do you think this is an interesting move by the OMG? Will it improve the visibility (or trustability) of UML or the other standards?
FNR Pearl Chair. Head of the Software Engineering RDI Unit at LIST. Affiliate Professor at University of Luxembourg. Â More about me.
This is nothing new. For years OMG has been an ISO publicly available specification (PAS) submitter. Even though these submissions are to ISO’s “fast track process” it tends to be slower than the OMG revision process. I believe the previous ISO standard for UML was UML 2.2, and UML 1.something before that. Having OMG standards be ISO standards tends to improve their acceptance internationally (even though OMG is already a pretty international organization).
Good to know. Nevertheless, given the “success” (in terms of retweets and visits) of this post suggests that most people (like myself) was completely unaware of this
Ed, this is precisely why I gave some publicity (with my ISO hat 🙂 about this. (Thanks to Jordi for disseminating it through his wide-scale channel!)
I think these kinds of things are good news for the whole Software Engineering community. They make people aware that its standardization bodies are no longer isolated islands, but co-operate with each other. In this way they help avoiding duplicated efforts, inconsistent and divergent recommendations, etc.
I think this is a positive step to the progressive establishment and wide adoption of international standards in Software Engineering (a discipline which is still not used to the common use of standards, but slowly getting there 🙂
Antonio.
[talking about the use of standards in SE in industry is something that would deserve its own thread, but I leave this to Jordi :-)]