Talk:Model-driven architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nominated for deletion[edit]

This article was previously nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model-driven architecture. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Article name capitalization etc.[edit]

In OMG's web site MDA is named as "Model Driven Architecture". So should this article be named as "Model Driven Architecture" instead of "Model-driven architecture"? Currently Model Driven Architecture is redirect to this and reverse move requires administator to delete that page AFAIK, but what are capitalization etc. rules for article names? --Thv 08:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia adopts a lowercase style for titles, and avoids capitalising them unless the title is clearly a proper noun. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). At AfD, consensus was that "Model-Driven Architecture" was erroneously capitalised, and "Model-driven architecture" was correct. As for the hyphen, it's my understanding that hyphenation rules require it (although, again, exceptions could be made for proper nouns). —Caesura(t) 09:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • MDA or `Model Driven Architecture` is a registered trademark ... though, it should be spelled the way it has be registered (like iPod, and not i-Pod or IPod or what-ever. June 27, 2006

What is MM?[edit]

In the third paragraph, I dont understand the term "MM". It is not referenced anywhere else on the page... is it too obvious, or is it a common abreviation I am not aware of, or is it a mistake ? Nicolas1981 20:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is MDD article?[edit]

Just curious, a poster above mentions the article on Model-Driven Development, but it doesn't seem to exist. Was it deleted? If so, why? --Andrew Eisenberg 06:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm…no, that was just a silly typo on my part. I've fixed it now. —Caesura(t) 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I Believe the MDA Concept Was Adopted by OMG, Not Originated by OMG[edit]

I think it is important to note that the term Model-Driven Architecture was in common use before adopted (and trademarked) by OMG. The general concept was similar, in that MDA called for the creation or execution of systems to be driven by higher-level abstractions (i.e. models). But this "plain" MDA did not prescribe the standards around its implementation.

Non-OMG MDA is a concept that many software engineers continue to use in their daily efforts, and I would suggest that a vast majority of them are doing so without the use of a single OMG standard.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbrower (talkcontribs) .

Model Driven Engineering[edit]

When one wish to refer to the model engineering principles without making an explicit reference to the OMG standards, then one should use Model Driven Engineering—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MDE (talkcontribs) .

Respecting the Trademarks[edit]

Perhaps it should be mentioned that MDA has been trademarked by OMG. The same is true for MDD Only MDE is a generic term, not yet trademarked by OMG—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MDE (talkcontribs) .

Since 2004, MDD is no longer a Trademark of the OMG (see United States Patent and Trademark Office) -- Horron (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Links to specific products and tools[edit]

I have removed the links to specific MDA products and tools from the external links section. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising or promoting products, or a list of links. Not to mention that the links to tools were dominating the list of external links, and taking up a large amount of page space (especially the ones that included promotional text touting the tool in question). There are several existing websites that offer far more comprehensive lists of MDA tools than the list that was here (including OMG's own MDA site). I have added a couple of external links to these existing websites as a substitute for the proliferation of links to individual products. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Do you know a game called bullshit bingo ? this article is almost unreadable if you don't have any(!) degree in comp. sci. - all the funny Abbrevations are fun, but not fun to read - it would be nice if someone could stretch the article a little bit ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Too technical for a general audience[edit]

I think most of the introduction of the current article is too technical for a general audience. I noticed several points:

  • The use of abbreviations is unacceptable
  • This article is in need of an overview section, which explains some more about the basics. This section should talk about general items instead of starting with all kinds of specifications.
  • A little history about the origins of this concepts will help the general audience to put it in perspective.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly should be renamed "OMG discovers abstract design". These are abstractions of what a typical experienced developer already knows/does. To claim "Current expert MDA practitioners (often referred to as Modeller/Architects) are scarce relative to the availability of traditional developers." is promoting a farce. MDA is merely naming an activity that developers already do - abstract to design and then implement. Just as object oriented teaches design, it's not an invention new to developing, it's a newly named teaching concept. Same with CMMI, Carnegie documents/names what experienced developers do - it's not an invention. This field is littered with people naming expertise that's already been done (GoF discovers wrappers, now called Facade!). New names for old technologies doesn't contribute to the technical community. And as you can see from the comments speaking in abstractions does more to put off people than educate them. (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)AmyInNH

Executable UML[edit]

While I believe that Executable UML is an important MDA technology, it doesn't require it's own section under this Wikipedia entry and is linked via the See also section. The cut and pasted text in the section is now out-of-date as well. I recommend this section is removed, unless some original text can be added to show that it is an integral part of MDA. --Lwriemen 8:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MDA approach: seperating design from architecture vs. design from implementation[edit]

Section "MDA approach" (2nd paragraph) states: "One of the main aims of the MDA is to separate design from architecture.". The succeeding justification/explanation of the terms "design" and "architecture" is not satisfactory to me. It's misleading or at least it needs citation to verify where this statement comes from.

I don't see the difference in "design and architecture", since the process of design results in an architecture, how could you seperate this? In my opinion MDA does not seperate "design and architecture" but "design and implementation" or "requirements analysis and design/architecture".

-Guest -- (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

link to 'models' in " which are expressed as models." seems incorrect[edit]

it links to 'computer model' rather than to the 'system of abstractions' definition which seems more appropriate ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybernut (talkcontribs) 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

have corrected that. --Tillmo (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Obsolete link[edit]

Hello there,
The link to first reference ("OMG pursues new strategic direction to build on success of past efforts") is obsolete. I was unable to find a newer link to this article after a quick research. Can anyone update this link? Thanks.
Wikifriendly, Epok__ (), 22:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epok (talkcontribs)