From: A E Lawrence (adrian.lawrence_at_email.domain.hidden)
Date: 2001-08-21 23:22:31
marcel.boosten_at_philips.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My anti-UML campaign continues...
> Of course, UML also has got positive sides...
> It is not all negative...
>
> Jim and Me in discussion.
> NEWMarcel is new text.
>
> Marcel:
> There is no need to have a formal semantics for
> pictures.
> Jim:
> If a diagram means one thing to you, and another to
> me, we have a problem.
> NEWMarcel:
> This is indeed the fundamental problem with pictures. They need
> explanation. They need context. It is an illusion to think
> that "formal semantics" for the symbols in the figure solves
> this fundamental problem.
>
> Marcel:
> Get real: use a drawing tool instead.
> Jim:
> Which could itself prove rather distracting, of course.
> NEWMarcel:
> Pen and paper never distracted me from writing... :-)
Jim is away on holiday, so he won't be able to answer this immediately.
But I just mention that the temporal logic and state chart people have
been using diagrams with formal properties (do I mean specifictions?)
for yonks. It seems to work for them. I don't know much about this, but
there are lurkers here who do :-)
As I understand it, most model checking apart from FDR uses this sort of
approach.
Adrian
-- Dr A E Lawrence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 on 2004-10-31 20:03:59 GMT
© Copyright WoTUG
All rights reserved