Textual modeling:
1) Emfatic and ECore:
- Emfatic - language and text editor describing EMF models
- ECore - interoperability, code generation, and persistence mechanism provided by EMF
ECore represents a class diagram subset of UML with several modifications. ECore is based on Emfatic metamodel, not on UML. These modifications are not compatible with Umple, major one - lack of association classes in ECore

2) MetaObject Facility (MOF)
- metamodel for models
- includes HUTN (Human-Usable Textual Notation)
Differences between HUTN and Umple:
1) HUTN generates a configuration specification and a textual modeling language based on a given model, thus HUTN is a set of languages.
2) HUTN is difficult to follow and difficult to quickly write.
3) Umple creates a UML model specification, HUTN is used to populate a MOF model.
4) HUTN is not used in practice today.
5) Lack of UML HUTN specification forces the use of MOF instead of UML.

3) UML Action Semantics
- way to specify a set of actions that can be performed on the elements of the UML diagram.
Issues:
- Abstract syntax relying on concrete implementations.
- Several implementations available: Object Action Language (OAL), java like Action Language(JAL), Action Semantics Language (ASL), - none of these languages confirm to UML standard -> they cannot express all constructs of UML Action Semantics directly, as each implemented a subset of it.
- Different subsets are implemented in different languages resulting in lack of interoperability between the tools.
- Only ASL is able to provide 100% generated code.
- ASL is public, but its parsers and production-quality interpreters are proprietary.
- ASL is not mimetically compatible with Umple or Java which results in slower adoption.