{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0176678445229682, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.517241379310345, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Taxonomy of Flexible Linguistic Commitments

Beside strict linguistic commitments of models to metamodels, documents to schemata, programs to grammars and activities to protocols, we often require or crave more flexible commitments. Some of such types of flexible commitments are well-understood and even formalised, others are considered harmful. In this paper, we make an attempt to classify these types from the language theory point of view, provide concrete examples from software language engineering for each of them and estimate usefulness and possible harm.