Editing Unified Modeling Language (section)

=== UML 1.x ===
Under the technical leadership of those three (Rumbaugh, Jacobson, and Booch), a consortium called the [[UML Partners]] was organized in 1996 to complete the ''Unified Modeling Language (UML)'' specification and propose it to the Object Management Group (OMG) for standardization. The partnership also contained additional interested parties (for example [[Hewlett-Packard|HP]], [[Digital Equipment Corporation|DEC]], [[IBM]], and [[Microsoft]]). The UML Partners' UML 1.0 draft was proposed to the OMG in January 1997 by the consortium. During the same month, the UML Partners formed a group, designed to define the exact meaning of language constructs, chaired by [[Cris Kobryn]] and administered by Ed Eykholt, to finalize the specification and integrate it with other standardization efforts. The result of this work, UML 1.1, was submitted to the OMG in August 1997 and adopted by the OMG in November 1997.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/97-08-11 |title=UML Specification version 1.1 (OMG document ad/97-08-11) |publisher=Omg.org |access-date=2011-09-22}}</ref>

After the first release, a task force was formed<ref name=":1" /> to improve the language, which released several minor revisions, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/ |title=UML |publisher=Omg.org |access-date=2014-04-10}}</ref>

The standards it produced (as well as the original standard) have been noted as being ambiguous and inconsistent.<ref>Génova et alia 2004 "Open Issues in Industrial Use Case Modeling"</ref>

==== Cardinality notation ====
As with database Chen, Bachman, and ISO [[ER diagram]]s, class models are specified to use "look-across" [[Cardinality (data modeling)|cardinalities]], even though several authors ([[Merise]],<ref>Hubert Tardieu, Arnold Rochfeld and René Colletti La methode MERISE: Principes et outils (Paperback - 1983)</ref>
Elmasri & Navathe,<ref>Elmasri, Ramez, B. Shamkant, Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems, third ed., Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2000.</ref>
amongst others<ref>{{cite book
|title=Conceptual Modeling – ER 2004: 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Shanghai, China, November 8–12, 2004
|publisher=[[Springer Publishing|Springer]]
|date=October 27, 2004
|series=[[Lecture Notes in Computer Science]] 3288
|edition=2004
|isbn=3540237232
|editor1=Paolo Atzeni
|editor2=Wesley Chu
|editor3=Hongjun Lu
|editor4=Shuigeng Zhou
|editor5=Tok Wang Ling
}}</ref>)
prefer same-side or "look-here" for roles and both minimum and maximum cardinalities. Recent researchers (Feinerer<ref>{{cite thesis
|author=Ingo Feinerer
|title=A Formal Treatment of UML Class Diagrams as an Efficient Method for Configuration Management
|url=https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/pub-inf_4582.pdf
|date=March 2007
|location=Vienna
|degree=Doctor of Technical Sciences
|publisher=Technical University of Vienna}}</ref>
and Dullea et al.<ref>{{cite journal
|journal=Data & Knowledge Engineering
|volume=47
|issue=2
|title=An analysis of structural validity in entity-relationship modeling
|author1=James Dullea
|author2=Il-Yeol Song
|author3=Ioanna Lamprou
|date=November 1, 2003
|pages=167–205
|doi=10.1016/S0169-023X(03)00049-1}}</ref>)
have shown that the "look-across" technique used by UML and ER diagrams is less effective and less coherent when applied to ''n''-ary relationships of order strictly greater than 2.

Feinerer says: "Problems arise if we operate under the look-across semantics as used for UML associations. Hartmann<ref>{{cite conference
|conference=ADC '03: Proceedings of the 14th Australasian database conference
|author=Sven Hartmann
|publisher=[[Australian Computer Society]]
|url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/820085.820110
|title=Reasoning about participation constraints and Chen's constraints
|date=January 17, 2003
|pages=105–113}} {{open access}}</ref>
investigates this situation and shows how and why different transformations fail.", and: "As we will see on the next few pages, the look-across interpretation introduces several difficulties which prevent the extension of simple mechanisms from binary to ''n''-ary associations."