Why acquire an additional tool (UModel) to achieve what EA claims to be able to do (model driven development)?
The fact that members of this community are considering this option suggests that there is an obvious gap that need be filled by Sparxsystem.
The fact that new kids on the block (UModel) can achieve this in their early versions suggest that Sparxsystems management of its user feature requests is not as responsive as it should be. We are now not talking about an organization the size of IBM or Microsoft. The situation could be much better.
Sparxsystem appears to have adopted a business / revenue model made popular by Microsoft, that is:
Develop a 3rd party development community around the product to fill feature gaps as Add-Ins.
This strategy works where the gap is commercially worthwile for any developer, that is, the developer can create a complete solution that other developers are willing to pay for.
The problem with this strategy in this instance is that an Add-in which simply facilitates that part of XML development that is widely supported by many tools in the market (some being open source) is unlikely to generate interest from Add-In developers.
An Add-In that solely sets out to resolve this problem is unlikely to generate interest except to highlight problems in Sparxsystems product / business development process.
For a fresh thinking about what I understand as a complete standards based enterprise engineering solution, I suggest community members look at
http://www.knowgravity.com/eng/value/mdee.htm and review the collateral. The Model Driven Enterprise Engineering (MDEE) and the CASSANDRA Intelligent Support platforms are of interest.

regards
Segun