Talk:Object-modeling language

This artical is grossly wrong. OMT and Booch are methods for designing OO classes, as well as language to describe the classes. UML is *not* a methodology. It only specifies the language to describe classes (hence the name Unified Modeling *Language*).

Completely agree. Most of this stuff belongs in this article: Object-oriented modeling not here. UML is an object modeling language. The various methods described here (in the current article, if I have time I'm going to edit it) are modeling methods not languages. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the article.

As it was before there was no clear distinction between a modeling language and a methodology. The graphic that was here also contributed to that, it was one of my pet peeves with Powerpoint slideware, inconsistent notation, it had boxes that looked the same but in some cases refered to a modeling language (UML) and in other cases a method (RUP). I thought the picture just contributed to the confusion but I found two other ones that I used instead. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As I look at it I realize the article now that I rewrote it is mostly focused on the UML and there should be more about other modeling languages. The thing is the other modeling languages I know of are pretty esoteric and most of the documentation are obscure papers and long discarded manuals (which I no longer have anyway). Also, IMO even for someone seeking a general overview of object modeling languages the first thing they need to know about is UML since I think it's safe to say ANY object modeling language at this point in time, well most likely any they use will just be UML but if it's not it will certainly be heavily influenced by UML. So I think this is a good start, it makes the distinction between the language and the method and at some point people who know more about the older or alternative languages can fill in more details. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)