[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:32:37 -0700 (MST)
> I'd like to suggest system three, where enough creative destruction goes on
> to permit reinvention where necessary to provide efficient provision of
> results - and I think that's pretty much what goes on in computing. Some
> reinvention of the wheel, some learning about inventions.
I can readily agree that system three is superior. I was more startled by
Walter Perry's admiration of system one, and I didn't mean to imply that a
completely sanitized system two was The Way. Perhaps my cultural bias
against early America is showing through (mind, I'm much less disapproving
of modern America).
> Code bases
> constantly change, though it may not be visible to users. And only
> foundations (binary math?) are ever fixed in concrete. For me, ontology
> can't begin to qualify as a foundation.
Hmm, I sense this last statement goes off axis. To stretch the analogy
quite thin, you can use ontology to find blueprints for the wheel you wish
to avoid reinventing, or you can use it to put in place your shiny new
Acme Wheel, Mark II. I don't think ontology per say has anything to do
with preferences over re-use.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
