From: Joaquin Miller (email@example.com)
Date: Tue 10 Sep 2002 - 14:35:12 BST
>I had thought (perhaps naively) that an object diagram would be a concrete >syntax that mapped to instances of elements in the Semantic Domain, instead >of the Abstract Syntax - but I can't work out whether that's what you're >saying or not. Let's keep at this discussion. My ideas about what the setup should be are not based in practical experience with semantics, so are not really worthy of the attention of those who have experience. But i feel i can state some requirements clearly. 1. An architect must be able to declare specific individuals in a UML model, in order to specify the configuration of the system. 2. A complete formal semantics must provide interpretations for these individuals. ........................ It is confusing at the very best (and i am too sweet to choose harsher words) not to have these objects in architects' models be in the same model and modeling language as the classes that describe the characteristics common to several of them. It's puzzling (for untutored me) if part of a model is syntax and part of that same model is semantics domain. We'll all benefit from those who do the hard work to provide formal semantics for our models, and to provide model checking tools, and model repositories, and metamodel tools to define language extensions or provide metadata to programs, and ... But i strongly feel it will be best if any formal semantics comes as a whole that provides an interpretation for both class and object.