Anyone who's read this blog long enough to see some of the larger articles can tell that I am carrying the torch for UML.  I know a lot of people who model things, but not a lot who use what I consider to be the canonical real-deal modeling language: UML.  Even when I'm whitboarding, I'm drawing actual UML constructs for classes, interfaces, packages, and components.  If you draw boxes with lines connecting them to other boxes, people will often get the idea you are trying to convey, but there's something compelling about an industry standard modeling dialect with the ability to express some more subtle semantics than "this thing somethings with this thing".  Why don't we hear that much about UML in the blogosphere?  Why is Microsoft developing its own modeling language?  To some degree I blame the round-trip engineering folks who want to keep code and models in perfect sync, and there are some idioms in CLR languages that just don't succinctly map to UML: The Terski brought up the example of delegats.  My response is and has always been that I'm not interested in modeling at the implementation level: that's what code is for.

I still keep tabs on the DSL tools team at MSFT, so it was nice to hear from Steve Cook that UML tools are going to find their way into Architecture Edition.

http://blogs.msdn.com/stevecook/archive/2008/06/25/i-ve-got-a-new-job-working-on-dsls-and-uml.aspx