UML Data Modeling Profile--how close are we to an OMG-approved standard?

[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) How are agile database designers handling this absence of an
approved
standard, and is it causing problems with database designers
accustomed to older
ways of doing things (e.g. committed to ER diagrams, etc). I am
looking for
resources that explore the controversy of using UML for database
design vs.
older methods.

5) 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 and is it asking for refinements? If it's the former, how
many years might one expect a standard to selected, refined, and
ratified?

6) 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?

Thanks.

Dana

[H. S. Lahman]

Responding to dana...

> 5) 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 and is it asking for refinements? If it's the former, how
> many years might one expect a standard to selected, refined, and
> ratified?

Request For Proposal. IOW, OMG is looking for ideas on what a standard
should be.

Currently UML only supports very basic data modeling (i.e., RDB schemas)
in a Class Diagram, using the Class Diagram as a traditional Entity
Relationship Diagram. (Lots of tools use other diagtrams for data
management contexts, but that usage is not standardized.) As the
citation you provided indicates, data management has come a long way
since ERDs were sufficient due to warehousing, middleware, etc., etc..
So there is a need for a more comprehensive standard that goes beyond
RDB schemas.

OMG is soliciting proposals for such a standard, probably because UML
already provides a lot of the needed constructs for OOA/D. That is, one
only needs to re-interpret the OOA/D semantics to the data management
domain. OMG's MDA initiative already provides semantic infrastructure
for doing that through the profile concept. I haven't read it but my
guess is that the RFP is primarily about defining an MDA profile for
using UML as a notation for general data management (and adding any
syntactic elements, if needed). That is, it provides a unique semantic
interpretation at the meta-model level for the notation.

Progress at standards groups tends to be glacial, so I wouldn't expect
much for at least a couple of years. Typically OMG gets an initial
standard ratified in about four years. But that will usually be a sort
of trial balloon good for "vanilla" modeling and will likely be
significantly modified over another four years to get the details right.

>
> 6) 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?

Other than joining OMG, the only thing the community can do is contact
the working group members and lobby them. Typically working groups are
made up of representatives of software vendors who volunteered because
that have vested interests in getting their proprietary view of the
world anointed as the standard, so the political infighting can be
intense. Providing support like white papers on particular issues can be
useful as a lobbying technique by supporting particular working group
members in a concrete way. But being a member of the working group is
far and away the best way to influence the standard.

Anybody can participate. However, to participate in a working group
initially defining the standard you have to be a member of OMG (either
representing a corporation or as an individual). [If OMG gets too many
volunteers for an efficient working group, they will usually break up
the working group into multiple working groups with more narrowly
defined scope. So if you are an OMG member and want to participate, you
very likely can somehow.]

Once a draft proposal is created OMG will make it publicly available for
review and anyone can critique it without OMG membership. But by that
time there is a lot of inertia and the public review is going to have to
identify some really glaring problem to cause anything but cosmetic changes.

--
Life is the only flaw in an otherwise perfect nonexistence
-- Schopenhauer

H. S. Lahman
H.la...@verizon.net
software blog: http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman/index.html

[dana]

H.S., thanks very much for your thoughtful and informative reply. I
posted the same questions on comp.databases.theory and the replies
were by turns accusatory, dismissive, and sarcastic (low information
content):

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_thread/thread/57a810cf8b3ecd2/6789b7f6a8de0ed5#6789b7f6a8de0ed5

On Jul 29, 10:42 am, "H. S. Lahman" <h.lah...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Progress at standards groups tends to be glacial, so I wouldn't expect
> much for at least a couple of years.

Thanks for that. "Good" to know nothing's round the bend. On the plus
side, any forward movement is positive. Glaciers move slowly but have
great transformative power.

> members in a concrete way. But being a member of the working group is
> far and away the best way to influence the standard.
> Anybody can participate. However, to participate in a working group
> initially defining the standard you have to be a member of OMG (either
> representing a corporation or as an individual). [If OMG gets too many
> volunteers for an efficient working group, they will usually break up
> the working group into multiple working groups with more narrowly
> defined scope. So if you are an OMG member and want to participate, you
> very likely can somehow.]

Is it costly to join? And what level of commitment is required?

> Once a draft proposal is created OMG will make it publicly available for
> review and anyone can critique it without OMG membership. But by that
> time there is a lot of inertia and the public review is going to have to
> identify some really glaring problem to cause anything but cosmetic changes.

Thanks again for the helpful reply.

Dana

[dana]

Anyone else? It's been difficult to engage in any healthy, productive,
and respectful conversation on this topic. Not quite sure why so few
are unable or unwilling to speak about it. Seems it's something that
ought to be pursued more vigorously. I'll have to look into what it
takes to join the OMG, but I'm uncredentialed as far as CS is
concerned.

Dana

[H. S. Lahman]

Responding to dana...

> Is it costly to join? And what level of commitment is required?

I don't recall the pricing; it should be on the web site somewhere. They
have different tiers of membership. I know one can get a corporate
membership for around $1500 that gets a representative onto working
groups. I would imagine an individual membership is cheaper, but I'd
guess it will still be a few hundred.