Re: BoundedContexts

@Udi: From my point of view Eric's use of the term "bounded context" is - first of all - a definition of a well defined and commonly accepted semantic context. Therefor, your example of this email thread is a perfect fit. If I refer to "udi's post" within the context of this thread everybody knows what I am talking about. Outside this bounded context "udi's post" is ambiguous. Thankfully you've posted a lot of interesting stuff concerning all kinds of contexts. I agree that Eric's definition of "Bounded context" is broad, but at the end it's tightly coupled to the field of linguistics.  Greg already named the linguistic phenomena:  Homonym (a word that stands for more than one different meaning). Ignoring the discussion about the differentiation to polysemy should be ok for now.. (we are not fully into the linguistic domain, eh). Let's sum up some facts:

 - The author of the given text uses the term "Bounded Context" in a different way than we are used to (eq. Eric defined it in his book). 
 - The author represents the thesis that: "microservices architecture tries to minimize on sharing, through the
concept of a bounded context. One way to achieve a bounded con‐ text
and minimize dependencies in extreme cases is to violate the Don’t
Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle and replicate common func‐ tionality
across services to achieve total independence." - The context of the given text is "software development" in general, "SOA vs. Microservices" in particular
 - The author has a strong Soa background
 

 To be honest: I`m confused. It seems to me, that he used the term by accident.
 

 Thomas