Talk:Unified Modeling Language

message: I removed the "Concepts" whole section, because that list is already present in the UML template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concepts section removed 

message: Minor thing... should the Jack Reeves quote be removed, since he doesn't have a page on Wikipedia?  Either that, or a page for him should be created so people know who it is that is being quoted... the page he did have was deleted by SimonP (justifiably, as it was practically blank and weasel-worded)
Yoda (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not make the assumption that a page on Wikipedia is a requirement for someone to be quoted.  (Wikipedia != Notability).  This is per their own guidelines.  If it is that big of a deal to you that all people quoted should have their own Wikipedia entry, then create the entry.  It is pretty simple.  An absence of a page is not grounds for the removal of a quote.  Emry (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Reeves quote 

message: The initial image should be replaced with just a UML diagram. There's no reason to have an image of an actual UML digraming software. Must have been the software authors or a fan that put that up.Firefight (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I have added all images to the article, except the diagram overview scheme, and I am not the software author, nor a fan of that software. I just liked the illustration, because it is some how different. Beside this main article, I also illustrated a dozend articles about the UML diagrams. In these articles I did add just a UML diagram. The illustrating here is not agian just one of these UML diagrams, but something different. If you find this confusing you might suggest an other different image or maybe improve the subscript of that image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing very different about this image - it is just a yellow class model! To represent UML we need a collage of different types of UML diagrams - something like an artist's portfolio. I will work on creating this collage.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support any good initiate here. I agree, using a collage could be a good idea. But off cause the current image is not just a yellow class model. It is a yellow class model in a UML modeler context. I like this image not just because it is something different. It is a visual attractive image, and it shows (just a little) that UML can be applied. This subject of the application of UML is hardly mentioned yet, in the current article. I think adding such a section to the article , would be an improvement as well. We could move the current image in that section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this diagram show that "UML can be applied"? A screenshot of a UML diagramming tool says nothing about the applicability or otherwise of UML. Such a screenshot belongs in the Wikipedia pages that talk about UML tools and List of UML tools. It simply does not belong on this page. Pls move this diagram to one of those pages.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Image 

message: The section on objected oriented analysis sticks out like a sore thumb. It adds very little to the material following it, and is not very well written either. And, of course, there is a separate wikipedia page for this topic>
This sections needs to be removed.
Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a section on Object Oriented Analysis doing here? 

message: * reference 12 
:B. Henderson-Sellers; C. Gonzalez-Perez (2006). "Uses and Abuses of the Stereotype Mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0"
links me some site where I am asked 25$ to read the article. not useful at all for me. Is this ok? what's wikipedia's stance on non-free/non-open references/sources? Couldn't this be abused by content providers to place 'ads' on wikipedia to generate revenue? 
User:89.217.145.227  09:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing. I removed the link, becuase I think there should only be links to free content. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was semi-free, in that the link did go to a full abstract and full first page of the article.  Not enough to substantiate the claims the citation supports, but not useless either.  I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to limit links only to fully-free content.  Admittedly, a doi might make more sense here. Yakushima (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree it is not useless. I just removed, what I consider, a commercial link to the springer site, see here, with a anom user added there, see here Dec 19 2008. In my experience these commercial links are normally not used. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-free/non-open references 

message: I copy the uncited criticism from the main article to this section. Feel free to reinsert with a source.
:This criticism is more frequently directed at UML 2.0 than UML 1.0, since newer revisions include more design-by-committee compromises.
:Weak visualization: UML employs many line styles that are graphically very similar; the meaning resides in permutations of line (dotted or solid) and arrow head (open or closed, filled or empty). The same line style can mean different things in different diagram types. The asterisk is used to signify iteration in behavioural models and parallel multiplicity in structural models. The multiplicity of an association is shown by an annotation disconnected from a line (unlike conventional data model notations). 
:Only the code is in sync with the code: UML has value in approaches that compile the models to generate source or executable code; on projects where the code is not generated, the code can fall out of sync with the model, assuming it ever matched up precisely in the first place.
:Aesthetically Inconsistent: This argument states that the adhoc mixing of abstract notation (2-D ovals, boxes, etc) make UML appear jarring and that more effort could have been made to construct uniform and aesthetically pleasing representations.
:Defining a UML 2.x model in one tool and then importing it into another tool typically leads to loss of information.
-- User:80.61.183.71 09:59, 29 June 2009 (CEST)
::Ok, that's fine with me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious criticisms moved from article page 

message: A statement within the Paragraph under "Unified Modeling Language topics"/"Software Development Methods" states that "...and new methods have been created based on UML. The best known is IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP)" is inaccurate or misleading. RUP is a process and not a language and it's misleading to state that RUP was created from UML. Wiki2shahid (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect/misleading statement that the RUP process "created based on UML" 

message: * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Meta-Object Facility article
-- Mdd (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-paste registration 

message: I see that this page have been abused repeatedly (some dude just think this is a sandbox) by 210.212.90.86, so I reverted the page back to the last version before the abuse.--Kenneth Vergil (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Abusive edits

message: In the section about metamodeling , the text ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language#Meta_modeling ) and the figure ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-Object_Facility ) are not coherent ( the correct one should be the text...).
Specifically, the figure starts numbering models top down (M0 = MOF   -> M3=run-time instances) 
while text starts numbering bottom up (M3=MOF -> M0=run time instances)
The figure needs to be corrected such that the top layer (MOF) is labelled M3, with the layers below this labelled M2, M1 and M0.  I have corrected the text to reflect this. (Refer to diagram in OMG UML Infrastructure v2.3 on p19) ZZZ zzz 222 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error naming convention in figure 

message: In section external links there  are some communities and links to resources of dubious quality and very outdated some of the, there are a forum with out actualization since 1 year and articles with clear reference to uml 1 which have conflicts with uml 2.
I would change the links, and I would replace the outdated ones for newest. I don't change because I don't want to bother to anyone ....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.83.249 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The linkedin link is a breach of WP:ELNO as it's essentially a forum. The case tools appears to be OK based on the same policy though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks Walter and thanks for teach me too :) Thomas  —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: In the section titled "Interaction Diagrams" the brief definition for Interaction overview diagram says "provides an overview in which the nodes represent communication diagrams". I think this is incomplete. Nodes may contain any of the interaction diagram types. A better wording might be: "provides an overview in which the nodes may represent any one of the interaction diagram types: sequence diagram, communication diagram, timing diagram or interaction overview diagram."
Nodes may also represent interaction occurrence frames which are activities or operations to invoke, although this might be more than what's needed in a summary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.128.85 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Error 

message: Linguistic incoherence
The extremely poor writing of the UML standards themselves—assumed to be the consequence of having been written by a non-native English speaker—seriously reduces their normative value. In this respect the standards have been widely cited, and indeed pilloried, as prime examples of unintelligible geekspeak. e.g. "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot".
This criticism section should be removed if it cannot be completely rewritten, as per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV:
Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
"The extremely poor writing": Says who?
"assumed to be the consequence of having been written by a non-native English speaker": Assumed to be? Assumptions don't belong in the article; and who is doing the assuming?
"reduces their normative value": Says who?
"In this respect the standards have been widely cited": By who?
"and indeed pilloried": By who?
"as prime examples of unintelligible geekspeak.": Unintelligible? Again, by who? 
"e.g. "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot"." I can understand the provided example quite well, in fact it is quite clear technical writing with no jargon. How can that qualify as "geekspeek"? Furthermore, it is not for Wikipedia to say whether or not that qualifies as "geekspeek", whether or not it is intelligible, or to gauge the quality of any writing.
Sahuagin (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ctriticisms: Linguistic Incoherence 

message: I think some of the images could be enlarged a little. --Solde9 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlarging images 

message: It seems that the article uses both the "International" English form of "Modeling" (in article name, etc.) and the American English variant "Modelling". I would argue that International should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, consistency is important. I've harmonized the spelling to the one used in the title. If there is any disagreement over the current spelling, I think a requested move is the way to go. jonkerz ♠talk 17:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Single -l- is in the proper name, so there is not much left to choose for us. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which language variant shall we use? 

message: I have a uml diagram I'm trying to interpret, and there's nothing in here to help me decode it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  i will get round to it in the next few weeks :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by O watkins (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  All I want is a glossary of the symbols 

message: The 2.5 version is under development, aiming mostly at the simplification of the UML specs. This fact may deserve coverage in the UML article. Cheers, --[IP Guest]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.102.2 (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UML 2.5 

message: File:Objektorientieren methoden historie.png|2004 diagram
File:OO-historie-2.svg|2008 diagram
File:OO Modeling languages history.jpg|2012 diagram
 
The diagram of the history of OO modeling languages has been translated and updated by me. In doing so I added Executable UML (xUML) for the following reasons:
# The diagram is not just about UML, but about Object Oriented modeling languages and their development
# The 2008 diagram gave the impression that UML is the only remaining method 
# However it seems more of the original methods have evolved into the new millennium 
# Executable UML seems to be an example of such an development
# At the moment it is unclear (to me) if more of the original methods have evolved. 
I suppose their are more methods, that could possibly be listed here. I am open for suggestions here. Adding xUML at least stipulates, that UML is not the only development in the field. -- Mdd (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. You should add the images and information to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have add the image here. And I will add the information to the Object modeling language article (or Object-oriented modeling article if the merger goes on) first. -- Mdd (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History diagram translated and updated 

message: The current article states in the second sentence of the lede:
:The standard is managed, and was created, by the Object Management Group...
I think there is reason to question this statement. For example Marc Hamilton (1999) Software Development: A Guide to Building Reliable Systems p.48 states:
:UML was created by Graady Booch , Ivar Jacobson and Jim Rumbaugh of Rational Software...
I think it is fair to say that The standard is managed and updated by the Object Management Group. It seems to much to state that the OMG created the standaard. -- Mdd (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who created UML?  

message: I rearranged the lead paragraph, see here, introducing the following changes:
# Removed questionable phrase + Questionable source
# Added an other source
# Added split in lead and overview section 
# Removed abbreviations
Maybe even more important. I have tried to simplify the text. Most articles in Wikipedia are to technical for a general audience, and I think this article is no exception. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. -- Mdd (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranged lead paragraph 

message: The document at the URL http://www.acs.org.au/documents/public/crpit/CRPITV17Hartmann.pdf seems to be no longer available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.22.178 (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The nice thing about full citations is than you can take the title, "Reasoning about participation constraints and Chen's constraints", pump it into a search engine and find some non-dead location for it. Fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link [32] leads to 404 

message: Why is it necessary to keep the old UML 1.x criticisms, as it is IMO obvious to a reader that there must have been some complaints about it, otherwise a new revision would never have been released? mthinkcpp (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The really interesting question here is, what is the most noted criticism on UML? What does the reliable sources say about this, and how can we incorporate this into this article? -- Mdd (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That 2.x is too large, see Unified_modeling_language#Size_of_the_language mthinkcpp (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is obviously a critical remark, which should not be in the historical section, but in the criticism section. Now there is a better balance, and your initial question is answered. -- Mdd (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it answered? (you never addressed the original Q). I want to determine whether the 1.x criticisms as relevant or not before integrating them. mthinkcpp (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

text: WP:CSECTION discourages criticism sections. mthinkcpp (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

text: WP:BALANCE doesn't apply (only applies when there are two competing points of view, which there aren't). mthinkcpp (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mthinkcpp, You just violate the WP:3RR -- Mdd (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Still doesn't address original Q mthinkcpp (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Also, if it does explain it, I'd recommend integrating it into the history section (for 1.x) mthinkcpp (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old criticisms of 1.x 

message: In the criticism section there is critique of UML 1.x, which has sat there for at least 9 years, and only recently been moved into its own section. Should it be removed due to it being no longer current information about UML (as 2.x has long succeeded it, it was released in 2005, 9 years ago)? mthinkcpp (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referencing this edit, but that's not too bad either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree in so far, that it does make clear, that the criticism on UML is focussed on different parts. Creating subparagraphs for just one sentence one way or another is never a good idea. -- Mdd (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC - Should the (9 year old) criticism of UML 1.x be kept? 

message: *Remove - The criticisms of 1.x should be removed.
*Keep - The criticisms of 1.x should be kept.
* Keep - Other than the removal of the "Dysfunctional interchange format" the recent changes have been an improvement, thanks. It actually makes sense to incorporate criticism when discussing the material as was done in an earlier edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referencing this edit, but that's not too bad either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree in so far, that it does make clear, that the criticism on UML is focussed on different parts. Creating subparagraphs for just one sentence one way or another is never a good idea. -- Mdd (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The activity diagram is not a semantically vaid UML 2.x diagram. In 2.x if more than one edge enters an action, there's an implied AND -- meaning both edges must supply tokens for the behavior to start. In two places within this diagram an edge coming from a downstream decision is redirected to a predecessor behavior. Such a diagram can not possibly work as it is an example of a step that depends upon its result being avaiable. The notation, with an implied OR was legal in UML 1.x diagrams however.
Mjchonoles (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams need to be fixed 

message: I've worked as a programmer in four companies, only one of which attempted to use UML (although another had toyed with the Rumbaugh OMT before UML existed replaced it but gave up), and that company only used UML because our clients had heard of it and thought it might be usedul, so required us to use it, but the company didn't really manage to use UML properly, and certainly not in a way that non-programmers said was helpful.  So, feeling dubious about the "ubiquitous in its field" entry on this Wikipedia page, I followed the cited link, only to find that the author of that article himself mentioned a survey in which "Only 13% found UML to be very useful" and "20% indicated that UML was more trouble than it was worth" and "22% indicated that they don't use UML at all".  Given this information, I really don't think it's correct to refer to UML as "ubiquitous".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.74.71 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If your point is that a lot of IT shops still don't bother with any standards or at times even with any serious modeling I'm sure that is (unfortunately) true. But that isn't what I take "ubiquitous" to mean. To me it means that UML is the default standard these days (2014) for anyone doing object modeling and I think that is absolutely true. I can't even think of a competing object modeling standard that is anywhere near the adoption of UML. I haven't done development in a while but back when I was doing it I don't remember anyone having a serious discussion of the nature "well we shouldn't use UML but we should us X instead". I agree the text could be revised to be clearer about that rather than just saying ubiquitous and of course a reference would be great but I think factually the statement is absolutely correct. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text: According to the SEI (Software Engineering Institute) it is in fact the standard language according to Bill Pollak of the SEI https://saturnnetwork.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/five-reasons-developers-dont-use-uml-and-six-reasons-to-use-it/ I'm sorry that your experience was not a beneficial one, but that does not mean it isn't ubiquitous in usage. Dr JohnHRobb (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Has become ubiquitous in its field"?! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unified Modeling Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150514080912/http://books.google.com/books?id=odZK99osY1EC&pg=PA52&img=1&pgis=1&dq=genova&sig=ACfU3U3tDC_q8WOMqUJW4EZCa5YQywoYLw&edge=0 to http://books.google.com/books?id=odZK99osY1EC&pg=PA52&img=1&pgis=1&dq=genova&sig=ACfU3U3tDC_q8WOMqUJW4EZCa5YQywoYLw&edge=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it should be declared as such. It's too formalized and complicated. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  UML is dead