1

I am currently writing a software requirements document. It is supposed to be modified and updated by the software developers. I would like to categorize the possible changes. To do this, I introduce several entities:

  1. The text of the standard, i.e. the letters written in the document
  2. The actual meaning of the text, i.e. how a reader would interpret it
  3. The supposed meaning of the text, i.e. what the writer wanted to say

There might be three levels of changes to the document:

  1. Change the text, but do not change the actual or the supposed meaning
  2. Change the text and the actual meaning, but not the supposed meaning
  3. Change the text and both actual and supposed meaning

Let me give an example.

  • The text: "No food is better that ours" (note the typo "that" is used instead of "than")
  • The actual meaning: either "There is no food that is better than our food" or "The absence of any food is better than our food", it is ambiguous
  • The supposed meaning: "There is no food that is better than our food"

An example of a level 1 change: "No food is better than ours" (just fixed the typo "that" to "than", but it was obvious it was a typo)

An example of a level 2 change: "There is no food that is better than our food" (I changed the text but clearly expressed the supposed meaning)

An example of a level 3 change: "The absence of any food is better than our food" (I changed the text and the supposed meaning)

I am quite sure some philosophical branch like hermeneutics explored this kind of stuff. I wonder, are there any better names or frameworks for what I do?

Mikhail
  • 119
  • 3
  • 1
    authorial intent? –  Aug 14 '20 at 13:00
  • There is neither actual nor supposed meaning when the text that is written is nonsense. – curiousdannii Aug 14 '20 at 15:02
  • 2
    There is literal and intended meaning, which may or may not be literal. Non-literal meaning is often called [figurative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language) (irony, metaphors, hyperbole, etc.). There are also [performative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance) aspects to meaning, where the text is used for more than, or even something other than, conveying information, e.g. to elicit action. – Conifold Aug 14 '20 at 22:03
  • 1
    Why did you say "that" wasn't a typo? "No food is better *that* ours" is meaningless on a literal level, it doesn't follow basic grammatical rules ('than' can function as a [preposition](http://www.german-latin-english.com/grammarpreposition.htm) followed by a possessive pronoun like 'ours', 'that' [cannot](https://www.quora.com/Is-the-word-that-a-preposition)). Maybe change that example to make your question less confusing. – Hypnosifl Aug 14 '20 at 23:44
  • I meant this is not _my_ typo, this is a typo made by the author of the item. I tried to clarify that. – Mikhail Aug 15 '20 at 08:03

0 Answers0