My point was not that one could not specify how to draw a line
in logic, but that specifying the line does not actually
draw it - for
that you have to translate some bit stream into so motor
action, or to
switch the CRT beam on at a particular point, etc.
My point being, that
organizations do not operate computers to make lights on the
on or off, or as expensive room heaters. The meaning of a computer
system is always the behaviour of the organization that uses it.
... that is rather a stretch. The meaning IS the
behavior?? No, the behavior depends (in part) on
the meaning: but the meaning is what it is even
if nobody acts on the information.
A very basic problem with your point is that it
seems to force us to adopt a process-based or
procedural approach to semantics, which takes us
exactly in the reverse direction of the evolution
from hard-wired specific codings to assertional
ontologies which has got us to the present. This
much progress was hard-won, and it would be a
great shame to be taken back to UML, or maybe
even Fortran, by worries arising from management