Talk:Object-modeling language

Article is grossly wrong

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*).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.94.250 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Merge into OOM

Both this and the object-oriented modeling articles are too small and the term 'object-modeling language' is not notable. It's a WP invention. Merge this article into OOM. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. But I think this article has a lot of overlap with Unified Modeling Language. We should probably first remove everything from this article that is already in Unified Modeling Language. Parts that are actually about object-modeling languages in general (if there are such parts) can be merged into object-oriented modeling, and this article can become a redirect. Also see the 2013 comments by User:MadScientistX11 above. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

oh. fast reply. And, I agree. I don't know what to do first (as you say), but we should move at least some of the content of this article to OOM and possibly some to UML and make this article direct to OOM. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't really matter which parts we move/merge first. Seems like we're in violent agreement. Anyway, let's wait a while for other opinions and ideas. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)