[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:40:11 -0600
So you want a bottom up world and accept the rework
when needed. I've no problem with that. It may
take a few million years to get from bytes to larvae,
but hey, that is freedom to choose and in many cases
can be shown to produce very resilient systems if a bit
slow on the process side. Discoverable consensus works.
Now, those who want to work top down or share
architectures, why do you need conceptual models?
Don't apologize. I'm reviewing XSLT chapters so
am a bit stuck in the input to output model.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
At 01:21 PM 2/14/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Exactly. So, when do we want to [model concepts]?
I don't want to model them.
I tend to think that concepts grow from ugly little larval experiences,
which sometimes survive to wrap themselves in a chrysalis and emerge as a
You can model butterflies in clay or glass, but then you've just got a clay
or glass butterfly. You can tell me that it's a real butterfly, but I can
disagree with that easily. You can also collect and categorize
butterflies, putting them in neat glass boxes, but then you've got a bunch
of dead butterflies.
Sometimes it's better to let the butterflies thrive than to stamp your own
order on them.