Re: Book

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Zhiming Liu (
Date: Tue 10 Sep 2002 - 02:58:17 BST

This sounds an interesting discusion. We are current working on some
semantics issues of OO and UML.
I think our recent technical reports are relevant to the questions in your
e-mail message.

If you are interested, you may like to look at our research reports No 258,
No 251, No 231, No.230 at


In reports 258 and 230, the relationship between class diagrams and instance
diagrams is given. a class diagram determines the state variables and
instance diagrams form the state space, and use cases change the system's
states by modifying the variables. We do have associations and their meaning
is the allowed links.

At lowever level, i.e. design and implmentation, class diagrams are defined
in a specification language in style smilar to Java. Refinement of models of
specification and design can be defined and reasoned about. Please see
reports 231 and 251.

Comments on our papers are highly appreciated.


Dr. Zhiming Liu
UNU/IIST, P.O.Box 3058, Macau
Phone: +853 712930
Fax:      +853 712940
On Leave from
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
The University of Leicester,
Leicester, UK.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joaquin Miller" <>
To: <>; <>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: Book

> 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
> 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
> 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
> > > that we have a means of discussing subtle aspects of the meaning of
> > > language, that tend to lead to lots of confusion and misunderstanding
> > > not pinned down and explicitly modelled (viz. all the recent
discussions on
> > > U2P definition of association and association generalization).
> To remove yourself from this list please mail
> with a message containing the word "unsubscribe".

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view