Future developments of the UML (a UML 3.0? no, please)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookBuffer this pageShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Email this to someone

You still have time (until May 22) to influence in the development of the new version of the UML (UML 3.0).

Michael Jesse Chonoles (in the SysML forum mailing list ) has perfectly summarized what the OMG wants to hear about:

  • How you currently use UML . And if you don’t why NOT?
  • Desired uses OF UML . What doesn’t it do now for you — what do you have to tailor or misuse to get it work for you. What non-standard features do you depend on.
  • Business case for change . Why would your suggested fixes help your organization? Would they help the spread of UML, MDA, SysML…Would they help the world of System / Software development?
  • Advice on the scope (of applicability) of UML , e.g., what should be part of UML vs profiles. Is UML too large,too small. Are there too many dialects? Should UML be capable of representing only OO languages, any language? Should any sort of processor configuration be supported? Should programming features be separated from logical features? Should there be formal executable semantics?
  • Technical evolution recommendations . Profiles, subsetting, packet merge,..
  • Views on the process for changing UML Is a major 3.0 UML needed? When? Do we need a regression test suite? Would your suggested changes cause temporary havoc? Should we have separate dialects of UML for each programming language/purpose?

Responses may be from any organization (or individual) via the OMG RFI
process. You need not be a member of OMG. Responses may be on any of
the above areas (the more the better). More details here . As always, feel free to also give your opinion as a comment to this post. I’d love TO know your opinions ON this!.

My quick answer would be that I don’t see the need for a UML 3.0. In fact, I didn’t even need/want a UML 2.0. FOR the kind OF applications that I usually model (DATA-intensive applications) UML 2.0 did NOT provide ANY major contribution wrt the 1.5 (I think the ONLY new features I use ARE SOME OF the improvements IN the sequence diagrams) but it did ADD a lot OF “noise” (you just need TO compare the SIZE OF the official UML 2.0 superstructure AND infrastructure specification WITH that OF the previous version). So, please keep UML generic (FOR specific tasks/domains we already have DOMAIN-specific languages) but simple AND usable. If we want practitioners TO adopt the UML, we cannot give them a 700 hundred pages specification TO READ!.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookBuffer this pageShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Email this to someone
  1. Anonymous
  2. jordi
  3. Anonymous
  4. Anonymous
  5. jordi
  6. Jean-Jacques Dubray
    • Rafael Chaves
      • Jean-Jacques Dubray
        • Rafael Chaves
  7. Jean-Jacques Dubray
  8. Cavan Watson


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *