Usually most architecture developed to day is based on some kind of semiotics and relies on determination, correspondence and non cultural background. We are building this concept from the well respected sign language used everywhere in the world in terms of traffic signs. As such is the argument that since all people use 150 road signs in a universal matter we should be able to bring everything into the sign language and be done without misunderstanding. The problem however is that a pure reliance on semiotics has proved not to work and that most companies do all kind of things, such as agile architecture to try to compensate.
Now why is semiotics not working as advertised. The First thing is that semiotics in a first order of complexity work well to translate a deterministic meaning. However in this first order logic we already see the gaps to action when we look at a simple traffic sign with a 30 and a red circle around it. This can dependent on country mean not to travel faster than 30 miles per hour or kilometres per hour. In the same way it tells someone that if he goes faster that he will get hard to get a car insurance in the future, get points, have to put some money into the hand of a stopping police car or that it is just a suggestion. So even in the first order logic semiotics is highly dependent on the context.
Architectural diagrams now also have the tendency not to be deterministic logic of the first order, but by a much higher order, which is where Goedels theorem impacts the correspondent logic of the description in so far as the sign representation can either be complete, but deterministic flawed or well deterministic formulated, but incomplete. Usually in the past most architects would then tell others that nothing is perfect and move on. This is why in my view semiotics should be used solely as an auxiliary element as a picture says it all, sadly also all that what you never intended.