UML14 — UML 2 Super/Compliance points/confusing and redundant

The idea of the fine-grain compliance points that allow different ways of configuring the UML standard lead to all kinds of practical problems with very little gain:

There is no facility provided to indicate which particular compliance points are assumed in a given model – hence two standard-compliant implementations based on different compliance point subsets may not be able to exchange models. Furthermore, with the plethora of different combinations of compliance points, this is a very likely situation, practically a certainty. This makes something of a mockery of the whole notion of standard.
The extreme granularity of the compliance points combined with the package merge mechanism results in a very complex API for model repositories. For instance, there are over 30 separate variations of Classifier. A programmer wanting to extract model information from a model repository will be required to know precisely which particular variant is desired. This is likely to lead to a lot of confusion and programming errors. Furthermore, as has been pointed out in several different issue reports, there are problems when trying to realize this using traditional and widespread programming languages such as C++ or Java.
Given that there is the concept of "partial" compliance to a given level, the whole fine-grained compliance scheme seems redundant.

This needs to be simplified significantly. One possibility is to define a small number of pre-defined compliance levels (maybe even just one?).

This is a duplicate of issue 6248.