Proprietary Graphical Formats vs. Text-Based XMI for Version Control

Model Serialization Trade-offs

Establishing a repeatable development environment for UML requires a consistent method for storing and versioning model files. The goal is to ensure that architectural diagrams can be tracked, diffed, and merged across a distributed team without losing structural integrity.

The Constraint

Graphical editors often utilize proprietary binary formats or complex XML schemas that include precise coordinate data. While these preserve visual fidelity, they frequently create noise in version control systems, making it difficult to isolate meaningful architectural changes from layout adjustments.

The Uncertainty

Text-based representations, such as PlantUML or standardized XMI, facilitate clean diffs and merges but may lack the ability to enforce strict layout consistency across different rendering engines. This creates a tension between the need for precise visual documentation and the requirement for a reproducible, git-friendly workflow.

• Does the loss of layout precision in text-based models outweigh the merge conflict risks associated with proprietary graphical formats?
• Which approach better supports long-term model repeatability when switching between different UML toolsets?