[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] UML Meta-Model and Notation

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:35:06 -0500
Message-id: <4B88145A.6060201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed,    (01)

I completely agree with your recent note in this thread.    (02)

JFS>> Any notation can be used in an open-ended number of ways, and
 >> it's essential to distinguish the notation from the way it is
 >> being used.  That is one of the main themes of the note below.    (03)

EB> This is true, but it misses Randall's point.  It's more important
 > to distinguish the specified semantics of the notation from the way
 > it is being used.    (04)

We are in complete agreement on that point, and I said something
similar in the quoted note to Jim A, Cory C, and Andre C.    (05)

EB> OMG is very much in the business of capturing modeling concepts
 > and representations of them.  UML is a specification of one set
 > of each.    (06)

Yes.  The point I was trying to make is that the semantic content
of the UML diagrams (and the many other notations that were being
discussed) can be captured in a notation-independent way.  I used
Common Logic as a very general example of how to do that.    (07)

I also made several other points (in that and other notes):    (08)

  1. There is no concrete notation of any kind that is ideal for
     all possible purposes.    (09)

  2. There are many different purposes that require the same or
     related content.    (010)

  3. Different software systems require different notations, and
     various human developers and users have strong preferences
     for different notations.    (011)

  4. There are possibilities for changing the future, but not the
     past.  Any system designed for the future must accommodate
     the huge investment in legacy systems designed in the past.    (012)

  5. Anybody or any organization that tries to change the world
     by starting with a clean slate is part of the problem, not
     part of the solution.    (013)

Therefore, we must have systematic ways of distinguishing content
and intent in various notations.  And we must develop systematic
ways of integrating and promoting interoperability among systems
from the past and those proposed for the future.    (014)

John    (015)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (016)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>