I’m very interested in your statement that “20% of UML is useful to describe the 35% of the design”. ¿Do you have any experiment or experience report to support those figures?

This is part of a larger discussion: UML vs MOF to build up DSLs. Disciplines such as Language-Oriented Programming, Model-Driven Engineering and Software Architecture have already found serious limitations in UML to describe the diferent concerns/aspects of a software system. An experiment or case study showing your 20%-35% ratio (or so) would be terrific

BTW: I’ll send you a linkedin invitation to my network so we can keep in touch for interesting discussions.

Bests

Glad to see MDA work in progress in Canarias!
I didn’t know about your company and now I see you are working in the area.

Kind regards from Valencia.

I agree with you in that you don’t find suitable constructs in UML to model many of software aspects/concerns. UI is just one of those aspects that seems to be forgotten by the specification.

However, I’ve often wonder whether it is really our fault to have considered UML as actually adequate to model any aspect of software! As an example, in that very same post, Jacobson recommends “to just model what it is architecturally significant (usually less than 10% of the code).” Perhaps UML just stands for modeling objects and their relationships and interactions, in a narrow (and somehow blur) strep of a generative architecture.

I’m a deep advocate of MDE/MDD, so I think every aspect of the software development must be expressed as a model, and definitely UML and its extension/specialization mechanism (Profiles) is not the solution to give support to any necessary DSL we came across to model those aspects.