6 1 Introduction
fering fields ha ve been integrated into the core language. Although this cre-
ated a rather large and partly overloaded language, it can be expected that
UML will claim to be the essential language standard for at least one more
decade.
1.4.2 UML Language Profiles
UML is no longer understood as a language defined completely in all its syn-
tactic and semantic details but as a language framework or language family
[CKM
+
99, Gr¨o10, GRR10] which allows, due to extension mechanisms and
semantic variation possibilities, creation of language profiles that can be ad-
justed to the respective purpose of the application. Thus, UML has the char-
acteristic of a colloquial language such as English which also allows for ad-
justing the vocabulary in the form of technical language and dialects.
[OMG99] already defined the essential requirements for UML profile con-
cept, and [CKM
+
99] discussed how this affects the manifestation of business-
or project-specific language profiles.
[Gr¨o10, GRR10] reveal how the organization of syntactic and semantic
variations of a part of UML in the form of features and language configu-
rations can be shown and how it can be applied for the configuration of a
language which suits the project.
Example language profiles include the specialization of UML to real-
time systems [OMG09], Enterprize Distributed Object Computing (EDOC)
[OMG04], multimedia applications [SE99b, SE99a], and frameworks [FPR01].
The [SE99b, SE99a], and frameworks [FPR01]. vocabulary is introduced di-
rectly into the model through the definition of classes, methods, attributes or
states. In addition, profiles offer lightweight extension capabilities for UML
syntax, such as the stereotypes and tags discussed in Fig. 2.17, and heavy-
weight extensions with new modeling constructs.
1
According to [ OMG99], the concept for defining a UML profile has,
among others, the following purposes:
• Precise definition of tags, stereotypes, and constraints is possible.
• Description of semantics using natural language is allowed.
• A more specific profile can adjust a more general profile to the desired
form.
• The combination of profiles allows for simultaneous use of multiple pro-
files.
• Mechanisms for managing the profiles’ compatibility are provided.
However, the goal of simple exchangeability and combinability of lan-
guage profiles cannot be fulfilled that easily. On the contrary, tool-based lan-
1
Common languages also allow for the imprint of new vocabulary through the def-
inition of terms. New modeling constructs would correspond to grammatical ex-
tensionbutarenotcommoninotherlanguages.