[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Even then, looser can be better, at least until the
number crunchers get into the act. The act of measurement
is the surest expression of a semantic, or something like
that. Otherwise, from the geek perspective, looser lasts
longer. We can spend enormous amounts of time identifying
all of the individually meaningful items, or we can implement
two text boxes labeled Request and Response and get on with
business.
This of course, negates traceability. So when building an
enterprise app, it can be useful to have a 50k foot view
of the end-to-end lifecycle of all of the documents and
the items they control. Really precise data items make
it harder than it has to be if the systems act mainly
as transport/storage, not an interpreter. If the human is
interpreting and taking all of the critical actions,
labeled textboxes do just as well. The fear and loathing
starts down in the queries and particularly any place
the system is performing hidden calculations.
Cacheing and naming never get easier.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 2:10 PM
I was going to say something similar, but from the enterprise
integration context: It's great if you can get an ontology that
describes the implicit semantics in a bunch of applications and
databases by relating them back to the actual business functions they
serve. BUT it is highly unlikely, in my experience anyway, that the
ontology will remain the master "contract". Instead, the apps and DBs
and business processes will evolve, as they always do, and IF &deity;
smiles on us the ontology will be kept in synch.
&deity; is, however, a capricious god :-) and seldom smiles on the
geeks trying to make life difficult for the people who are doing what
they have to do to make the numbers this quarter or whatever.
|
