A standard UML profile for data modeling. How close are we?

[dana]

1) Are there competing UML Data Modeling profiles (for relational
databases) or is only one being considered? One of Scott's articles
mentions that an
official data modeling profile RFP appeared at OMG in December, 2005.
It is now
~3.5 years later. Where does that stand:

http://www.agiledata.org/essays/umlDataModelingProfile.html#RFP

2) If there's only one being considered, how far away are we from it
becoming an accepted standard?

3) How are UML modeling tool vendors handling this absence of a
standard, accepted data modeling profile? Will vendors create
transforms to the standard from whatever UML data modeling profile(s)
they currently support?

4) What precisely *is* an RFP? Is the OMG simply in a mode where it
is
soliciting entire candidate UML data modeling profiles, or has it put
out a draft of one profile and is asking for refinements / comments?
Or does that come later--RFC? If it's the former, how many years might
one expect a standard to selected, refined, and
ratified--and does this matter a whit to practitioners who have work
to get done?

5) What can the community do to accelerate the process of getting a
UML Data Modeling profile ratified? Does one have to be a prof or in
the upper echelons of one's field, or can "ordinary" professionals
contribute?

Of course there's the also question of an "impedance mismatch" between
a data-centric ERD-based and an app-centric / "unified" / OOP UML-
based approach to data modeling:

http://www.agiledata.org/essays/culturalImpedanceMismatch.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch

http://www.agiledata.org/essays/impedanceMismatch.html

Comments?

Thanks.

Dana

[Cimode]

Mmm...This sounds as homework...

[Bob Badour]

dana wrote:

> 1) Are there competing UML Data Modeling profiles (for relational
> databases) or is only one being considered? One of Scott's articles
> mentions that an
> official data modeling profile RFP appeared at OMG in December, 2005.
> It is now
> ~3.5 years later. Where does that stand:

Frankly, who cares? It's not like UML has any theory behind it. It's
just yet another convention for drawing pretty pictures, and a crutch
best avoided.

[Roy Hann]

dana wrote:

> 1) Are there competing UML Data Modeling profiles (for relational
> databases) or is only one being considered?

I really couldn't give a stuff because I will bet a fancy dinner that it
won't have been conceived or framed by anyone with the first inkling
of a clue about relational databases. (They might have some slight
notion of the quirks and foibles of various popular SQL DBMS products,
but since a large fraction of even the regular users of such
products badly misuse them, that counts for nil in my book.)

> 2) If there's only one being considered, how far away are we from it
> becoming an accepted standard?

Don't know, don't care.

> 3) How are UML modeling tool vendors handling this absence of a
> standard, accepted data modeling profile? Will vendors create
> transforms to the standard from whatever UML data modeling profile(s)
> they currently support?

If it means parting fools from their money, count on it.

> 4) What precisely *is* an RFP? Is the OMG simply in a mode where it
> is
> soliciting entire candidate UML data modeling profiles, or has it put
> out a draft of one profile and is asking for refinements / comments?
> Or does that come later--RFC? If it's the former, how many years might
> one expect a standard to selected, refined, and
> ratified--and does this matter a whit to practitioners who have work
> to get done?

Not now, not ever.

> 5) What can the community do to accelerate the process of getting a
> UML Data Modeling profile ratified? Does one have to be a prof or in
> the upper echelons of one's field, or can "ordinary" professionals
> contribute?

Ordinary "professionals" would do very well to learn more about the
basics of relational databases theory just to do their day job better,
before they start erecting wobbly great "standards" towers on quicksand.

> Of course there's the also question of an "impedance mismatch" between
> a data-centric ERD-based and an app-centric / "unified" / OOP UML-
> based approach to data modeling:

There is no impedance mismatch--a term like that makes it sound like a
law of nature. It is merely a consequence of our devotion to low-level
procedural programming and our taste for "OOP"--whatever that is. There
was an excuse for it 20-25 years ago. I have no explanation for why
we're still pursuing it now though.

--
Roy

[Alfredo Novoa]

On 29 jul, 14:37, dana <dana_at_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1) Are there competing UML Data Modeling profiles (for relational
> databases) or is only one being considered? One of Scott's articles
> mentions that an
> official data modeling profile RFP appeared at OMG in December, 2005.
> It is now
> ~3.5 years later. Where does that stand:

UML was an empty fad of the early 00s. Currently almost nobody cares
about it.

> Of course there's the also question of an "impedance mismatch" between
> a data-centric ERD-based and an app-centric / "unified" / OOP UML-
> based approach to data modeling:

Database design is more than vague drawings, but both drawing
conventions were very similar.

Regards
Alfredo