[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes. The ultimate system to resolve the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis for artificial systems. For humans,
the resolutions are not as cut and dry (or best not be):
"Moderate Whorfianism differs from extreme Whorfianism in these ways:
o the emphasis is on the potential for thinking to be 'influenced' rather than unavoidably 'determined' by language;
o it is a two-way process, so that 'the kind of language we use' is also influenced by 'the way we see the world';
o any influence is ascribed not to 'Language' as such or to one language compared with another, but to the use within a language of one variety rather than another (typically a sociolect - the language used primarily by members of a particular social group);
o emphasis is given to the social context of language use rather than to purely linguistic considerations, such as the social pressure in particular contexts to use language in one way rather than another."
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html
Also familiar with CASE, STEP and the modeling approach. XML-Dev did this topic
in deep hairy detail last year. Again, that we keep coming back to it
means there is a requirement for XML yet to be formulated clearly or
near enough the throne to be noticed publicly.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Kirkham [mailto:pete.kirkham@baesystems.com]
gtn@rbii.com
>The "domain model" as you put it, is roughly equivalent to a
>vocabulary with an associated set of semantics. So long as you agree
>on the terms, you can communicate, and that is the whole point.
The domain model has no fixed language, only semantics.
<snipped the modeling systems descriptions/>
|
