RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

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 
beautiful butterfly.

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.