The UML means different things to different people,which is whyI find the notion of people using a differentUmlModeuseful.Most people I talk to are interested inUmlAsSketchand this group isn't very impressed with UML2..
The reason for this unhappiness is that the drive for UML 2 wasto formalize and complete the UML to support MDA;primarily forUmlAsProgrammingLanguage(and secondarily forUmlAsBlueprint).As a result sketchers were pretty muchignored.This was largely their own fault as sketchers aren'tinterested enough in the UML to take an active role in the UML committees..
All this didn't surprise me.Something new that I discovered inthe last couple of weeks (that included visiting UML 2003 andOOPSLA) was that disdain for UML is pretty rampant amongst theUmlAsProgrammingLanguagecommunity too.After my talk atUML 2003 (broadly an appeal to not ignore the need of sketchers)several people came up to me to point out that people active in theMDA weren't particularly interested in the UML either..
Even on the MDA panel at OOPSLA,the pro-MDA speakers based theirassumptions on the fact that they would be using a simplified subsetof UML,and emphasized that you should not judge MDA on theUML.(Which didn't save them from a blistering attack byDave"OTI"Thomas.)
I wonder where this will leave the UML in the future.I hear moremutterings from sketchers about the growing irrelevance of UMLstandards.In the MDA community it seems that we will see a rise oftools all using different subsets of the UML standards,probablyextended subsets using profiles.What will this mean for the UML asan interchange mechanism between MDA tools?Some people are sayingthat the UML will not be the interchange mechanism - that the OMGMOF will play that role.This is all very well,but will users ofMDA tools get portability in practice,or will each tool turn intoits own proprietary language??