[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode lConcepts?))
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:02:05 -0600
I'll buy that. All the tools all the time.
Although, the engineers aren't choosing. The contracts
people do that, then the systems engineers take a
whack at it, then the logisticians beat on it,
hand it back to the systems engineers, who
then say this or nothing, so the loggies cave
in and pass on the results to the tech writers
who look at the engineering drawings and find
mistakes which they then take under-the-table
back to the systems engineers who issue revisions,
which the loggies process and pass on to the
tech writers as new designs, and the tech writers go
ahead and publish the manuals they had ready before
the loggies came to them but with new drawings.
Meanwhile, the Work Breakdown Structure is being
post-fixed by the Contracts people
so the customer won't discover the incompetence of
the systems engineers that the tech writers covered up
so the General Manager could still get credit and the
company can get the cost-performance award.
OOPS! The customer has XMLWebSneak! Pro Verion 2.0.
It watches every id on every message and notices
the hidden ones. The XMLGrinch strikes!!.
Gotta love these open information systems.
Is UML generic? Really? Or just de rigeur?
If conceptual modeling is wanted, why UML?
IDEF had about 14 different models for all of that last
I looked, all made to interoperate for a complete
and very detailed description when needed. That is
what the KBI guys were dealing with last time
markup went round this loop. Will the semantic web
require 14 different models?
I'm ok with that. I am the Grinch.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:05 PM
To: XML DEV
Subject: Re: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <email@example.com>
>Why do we need to model concepts?
Is this just the classic software engineering debate about the value of
closer-to-executable requirements specs? Which comes down to whether we
capture and analyse requirements using a natural tool (conceptual modeling)
or a generic toolkit (UML) or with implementation tools (e.g. DTDs), which
probably makes the choice a function of the complexity and criticality.
Do we make a conceptual modeling language in which pizza concepts can be
expressed (cold, late, don't-let-boy-with-zits-deliver-pepperoni, etc) and
then transform it? Or do we use a generic toolkit which has generic tools?
Or do we try to shoehorn into the low-level implementation system? Why not
have all these options available and well supported?