Lists Home |
Date Index |
On 8/9/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Markup, as the name alludes to, is not about normalization
> although from the computer's point of view, that is a
> good thing to achieve. Should one markup only to
> the advantage of the computer? It's an easy trap to
> fall into.
I'd like to believe that if you can find models (markup, DB, OO or
otherwise) that have wide applicability (and result in advantage for
the computer) you'll find that you have models that have a good chance
of being being widely accepted by the humans involved. See below...
> From one point of view, it is about capturing the
> structure and meaningful names organically present.
> In our younger days when some of us talked about using
> markup for modeling, some thought it a means to create
> a model, others a means to capture one. Practically,
> XML doesn't care, but historically, I think the latter
> approach dominated until XML made markup a favorite
> among computer scientists.
> But..... if one tries to 'fix' an organically derived model,
> one may lose some of the meaning. So even as we
> proseletyze good practices for structuring, we come
> back to naming as the practice to cultivate because
> idioms are meaningful.
> Yes? No?
This is more a gut feeling than anything formal, but in my book if
you "solve" the naming problem you've solved normalization and you've
solved structure. IOW, good names categorize completely and normally.
Good categories result in natural (well understood) relationships.
So, back to the what's a good name permathread... I bring it back up
because the recent discussion on CG (email@example.com) about "The
corporation" and the general issues recently discussed on that list
highlight how far we are from really having good ways to build graph
structures that are universally agreed on even for small domains.
Almost forgot to answer your question: if a good organic model needs
"fixing" then it wasn't that good in the first place; too much assumed
knowledge. So, IOW, I'd vote no...