Gregor, Crista and I had a discussion about the 

sentence/grammar = object/class dictionary correspondence.

We considered the case of components and aspects and found that in this context the correspondence
must be used with caution in order not to confuse people.

Consider a class ClassDef, an instance of the class ClassDef, 
called class Point, and an instance of class Point, 
a Point-object called aPoint. Now consider another class 
CoordinatorDef, and an instance of class CoordinatorDef 
which represents a coordination aspect description, 
called a COOL description c. 

If we call c an object, most people would be confused 
and would think that c would exist at the same run-time as aPoint. 
It is better to call c a coordinator description than an object. 
The way Gregor and Crista put it, the point objects and the  
coordination objects are at a different level.

We have classes at two levels: ClassDef and CoordinatorDef are 
at level 1, Point is at level 2. Since CoordinatorDef-objects are 
instances of a level 1 class and Point-objects are instances of a 
level 2 class we should not call them both objects without 
qualification. We could say that coordinators are level-1-objects
and points are level-2-objects. But it is better to 
call coordinators just coordinators and not refer to their
object representation.

Gregor made a point regarding what is interesting. 
The fact that a coordinator is an object is not
interesting and should not be mentioned unnecessarily. 
Indeed it confuses people who learn about AOP.

-- Karl