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