Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Joaquin Miller (
Date: Mon 09 Sep 2002 - 19:05:35 BST

>The key point about that discussion is that one must be able to look at an 
>element of the semantics domain (which will be described in some language) 
>and point to something in the real world and say "this element corresponds 
>to that thing". Let me give a small example. It is hard to point to a 
>thing in the world that corresponds to the class "Book". However, you can 
>point to things (i.e. particular books) that correspond to objects 
>(elements of the semantics domain) in a denotation of the class "Book"

Thank you Stuart.  This is the first time i have seen any motivation 
offered for excluding objects from the modeling language or excluding 
classes from the semantics domain, or splitting UML into two parts, or 
whatever it is that 2U is up to.  (My choice of words just indicates that i 
don't grok it yet.)

It is certainly true that there is nothing to point to, which is the (oh, 
oh!  here goes:) denotation of 'book.'    This is the cause of much 
trouble, and if 2U has found a way to avoid the trouble, that's great.

It is, though, pretty easy to convey to one's interlocutor what is meant by 

(Though, like all words, there will be what some call variants or 
extensions around the central cluster.  Last week at the Berkeley art 
museum i saw a book made from two cigarette packs, with illustrations drawn 
on the white sides, opened flat, trimmed, and then folded together and hand 
sewn.  And that is pretty close, compared to the various meanings of 'book' 
in accounting, card games,  criminal prosecution, and bookmaking (the other 
meaning of 'bookmaking'); card games being the outlier here.)

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view