Re: RE: Status of UML 2.0



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Les Munday (baldrick@ureach.com)
Date: Fri 25 Oct 2002 - 00:36:30 BST


> Heinrich,
> 
> But my point is that your goal,
> 
> My understanding of "unambiguous" UML is that each UML 
diagram has well
> defined meaning as opposed 
> to several meanings depending on who is looking at the 
diagram. This does
> (and should not) exclude 
> the possibility that the same meaning can be expressed by 
different
> diagrams.
> 
> is quite difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
> 
> For example, given some program P, I wish to determine it's 
meaning.  To do
> so requires that I have
> a formal semantics, one that is unambiguous and complete in 
the sense that
> every sentence constructed
> in the implementation language has only one interpretation in 
the
> specification language - but that requires
> me to show that the specification language itself is 
unambiguous - which in
> general can't be done.
> 
> robert
> 
Hmm! 'the specification language cannot be shown to be 
unambiguous'.

Please explain. Is 'Z' not proven to be unambiguous? I'm 
curious.

Les.

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view