What is a "property"?

[Glassboy]

Now consider the person who painted it. Were they worried about whether this shade of blue was called "Prussian" or "Cobalt"?
Or were they just using that shade to convey, as clearly as possible, to the "audience" some aspect about that flower that they wanted to explain?

You sir, have obviously never hung out with historical war gamers or train spotters :-)

Which I suppose comes down to in some instances that colour is an attribute used to judge authenticity.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The "modeller's painting" is, of course, Rene Magritte's "La trahison des images" (The treachery of images), commonly called "Ceci n'est pas un pipe"  ("This is not a pipe").



Some information in: The Treachery of Images

Also, listen to the "W**k" in: Two art historians discuss, wherein it is asserted that "the representation of the thing is the thing".

Welcome back, sargasso!  I, for one, have missed you!

Paolo

[EDIT: on the subject of "The Treachery of Images", check out Bus seat burqas spark online outcry  ]

[sargasso]

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I have to vent my anger and here at least there are sane people.

This happened elsewhere and today by the way!

THEY: Oh, you can't have the same name for a component and a class.
ME:  (deep breathing for at least 24 minutes) Que?
THEY: Oh, you can't do that because they would mean the same thing!
ME: (madly fumbling for 000 on my phone) So, a picture of a brick called "Fred" is the same thing as a picture of a dog called "Fred"?
THEY: Uh, what do you mean?
ME: ("Yes, hello operator. I desperately need three kg of Valium") Listen carefully, I will say this only once! (thinks: or twice,or thrice or perhaps 6.023*10^26 times...) (Very deep breath) OK. Is a picture of a dog called Fred the same thing as a picture of fish called Wanda?
THEY: I thought we were talking about the system?
ME: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!


Oh and by the way Paolo, that is actually a picture of a Picture that is (vicariously) called "This is not a Pipe"
 

[Glassboy]

Oh and by the way Paolo, that is actually a picture of a Picture that is (vicariously) called "This is not a Pipe"

Actually an instance of a picture of a picture .....

<ducks>

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Oh and by the way Paolo, that is actually a picture of a Picture that is (vicariously) called "This is not a Pipe"

Actually an instance of a picture of a picture .....

<ducks>

And so the question is begged...  Over the last couple of weeks, since I came back from holidays, I have been grappling (again), occasionally, with the question of what is an "instance"?  

I'm serious!  I contemplated posting on the matter to get feedback, but till now proved too lazy.   Now I guess I'll have to.  Watch out for it in the UML Process folder.

Paolo

[Richard Freggi]

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I have to vent my anger and here at least there are sane people.

This happened elsewhere and today by the way!

THEY: Oh, you can't have the same name for a component and a class.
ME:  (deep breathing for at least 24 minutes) Que?
THEY: Oh, you can't do that because they would mean the same thing!
ME: (madly fumbling for 000 on my phone) So, a picture of a brick called "Fred" is the same thing as a picture of a dog called "Fred"?
THEY: Uh, what do you mean?
ME: ("Yes, hello operator. I desperately need three kg of Valium") Listen carefully, I will say this only once! (thinks: or twice,or thrice or perhaps 6.023*10^26 times...) (Very deep breath) OK. Is a picture of a dog called Fred the same thing as a picture of fish called Wanda?
THEY: I thought we were talking about the system?
ME: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!


Oh and by the way Paolo, that is actually a picture of a Picture that is (vicariously) called "This is not a Pipe"
 

I would suggest that the answer could have been that in UML 2.x components and classes are semantically DIFFERENT things, therefore they CAN have the same name... it would be like using he same name for an actor and a class... not necessarily a good idea, but not incompatible with the standard.  I think that classes realize components, so they are not the same thing semantically.

[sargasso]

And so the question is begged...  Over the last couple of weeks, since I came back from holidays, I have been grappling (again), occasionally, with the question of what is an "instance"?  

No, the question most definitely is:,
"Is the instance of the picture of the picture of a pipe
that you see
on your PC
the same instance of the picture of the picture of a pipe
that I see
in front of me
on my PC?"

It must surely be
that that could not be.
Unless we gaze upon the same PC.

Then I'd be thee, and thee'd be me ...
a thought that doth not comfort me.

See,this UML stuff is easy!  Even a child could understand it.

As usual, I will sign off with a

b

[Glassboy]

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose" 

[Paolo F Cantoni]

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose" 

"Aye, there's the rub"

That which we call a pig,
By any other word would not smell as sweet.

Paolo

[sargasso]

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose" 

_{(Now I was given the understanding that we were eschewing the Bard? Mneh?)}

Don't forget that just at the beginning of that she (being the Juliet in question) says:

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy."

Which of course brings back in a full circle to "What is a Romeo?" (originally "Wherefore art thou Romeo?")
Is it a part, a role, an actor, a class, a classifier, an instance of any of the beforesaid?
I think the only thing that we can definitely agree upon is that "Il est pas une pipe!"

b