[xtm-wg] Conceptual model, and formal semantics for TMs

["ann.wrightson" <ann.wrightson@leedsalumni.org.uk>]

Alexander Sigel wrote:

so TM markup should not have attached a single formal semantic to it.
noone could decide upon that, as the the intended purposes and usage
contexts are different.

.... also the ongoing discussion regarding the model in the spec.

Reply:

There are two kinds of semantics involved (which may be getting mixed up?) -
(1)the kind of semantics which models and clarifies inherent properties of
the notation (and this is what I have tended to talk about) - and
(2) semantics in the sense of what is being meaningfully expressed by an
instance of the notation.

I agree that (2) should be minimally constrained; I think it will be
interesting & useful to have (1) as part of understanding what TM "is". The
conceptual model uses too rich a notation to be a good (1) - though it is OK
for now, and serves a useful purpose in the spec. (& BTW Please folks don't
underestimate the number of potential implementers and users who do read UML,
and may well find it a lot easier to read than the DTD. I'd like the spec to
reach both kinds of people & speak clearly to them.)

Ann W.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/337252/_/974407188/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com