Tracking issue migrating to non-proprietary UML-based workflows

I would like a satisfying answer on this topic. My impression from the Technical Road map document was that the IFC Specification (maintenance) is currently too bespoke and we need something that is more open to maintain the spec. I have tried opening the EA XMI format in various UML tools such as Altova, Modelio etc. and failed if not deleting the Enterprise Architect extension node.

So, in order to resolve the "bespokeness" the move to a not only bespoke but also proprietary format (which is a kind of a paradox in itself on so many levels) is questionable. I am not even sure the bespoke nature is problematic because IFC is a bespoke standard. In order to document it, it cannot be avoided as is the case in XMI now.

This is why I was asking for a standard requirement analysis to see what the goals are and a regression matrix to compare the features of the systems. Which ones will be kept which deprecated and what the replacement will be or a statement why it is not needed anymore. I can understand the push to EA if there is a clear interest to maintain the schema as an EA model but if that was not the objective and we resolve nothing and getting a system that is inferior in critical features that were mentioned in the emails and our meeting on Nov 4th, I do not understand this push.

For the sake of transparency, I would propose to have a requirement analysis where the objectives are listed and we have a way to measure that these objectives were accomplished and a regression matrix with an explanation why the features that were mentioned in the emails and the meeting on Thursday Nov 4th will either not be supported, or if they will, when. Otherwise, there is no accountability and no means of planing in the projects as well as implementation of bSI standards.