Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Joaquin Miller (
Date: Mon 09 Sep 2002 - 18:26:01 BST

>The statement in the 2U submission that Joaquin refers to is sloppy 
>writing and has been removed.

OK.  That clears that up.  This is the reason to publish drafts.  This is 
also an example of a successful test: a test that found something that 
could be corrected.

>I largely agree with the way in which Joaquin explained his understanding 
>of the way we were describing semantics, and Tony's interventions have 
>been very helpful in making this even clearer. I agree with definition of 
>denotation, as discussed below.

Good.  Tony and Mitch may have a disconnect, which they will work out.

Tony reports that 'to denote' is used with various meanings by different 
specialists.  All the more reason to not use it in the UML 
specification.  Or, if it really adds great value, to use it with extreme 
care and always with the same meaning, exactly.

It's not fair to the untutored for a group of specialists claiming 
precision to use terms, which give every appearance of being technical 
terms of their discipline, in a way that is imprecise, polysemic, loose, 
colloquial, or understandable from the context by specialists.

Nor is it fair to latch on to basic words the untutored need to be able to 
think.  For example, to take 'meaning' and give it a different meaning in 
the jargon.  That may be OK behind closed doors (and maybe even in 
specialist journals) but not when instructing the laity.

If 'meaning' means image under the interpretation function, then what word 
are we supposed to use to mean meaning?

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view