Re: Book



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Joaquin Miller (miller@joaquin.net)
Date: Mon 09 Sep 2002 - 23:15:04 BST


I like the approach of having a formal semantics, and of having an 
executable model.  I've been a supporter since i first heard of the work 
years ago.  I even praise it publicly.  And i am a supporter of having 
instance diagrams to figure out what the class diagrams might mean or could 
not possibly mean or are may not be making sense about.  I second the 
requests for them that are made on the Harmony MOF calls.

What i don't grok is:

1.   why i can't have objects and links in my model.

2.  if i do, what their image in the semantics domain is.

(of course, maybe 1 is wrong and 2 is answered.  but you guys know i have 
been asking about this right since the initial 2U submission.)

My motivation for 1 is the practical necessity for a software architect to 
specify,
     in the model,
the configuration of the system.

My motivation for 2 is first of all philosophical curiosity.  But curiosity 
driven by the desire to eventually be able to simulate the system i have 
specified.

>And Jos Warmer has found building such tools from a semantic domain model
>(as is presented in the OCL 2.0 model) very straightforward.
>
> > So you see our motivation is not philosophical, but practical. It so
> > happens that taking the trouble to define semantics in this way also means
> > that we have a means of discussing subtle aspects of the meaning of the
> > language, that tend to lead to lots of confusion and misunderstanding if
> > not pinned down and explicitly modelled (viz. all the recent discussions on
> > U2P definition of association and association generalization).

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view