From: Joaquin Miller (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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?