[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Top-down or bottom-up?

• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:04:20 -0400 (EDT)

Len Bullard writes:

 > > That's not what I mean -- creating a data model is tractable, but a
 > > data model is of questionable value if it's not based on a fairly
 > > accurate business model, use cases, etc.  I don't think that any of us
 > > can reasonably draw up a reliable business model that will cover the
 > > Web for the next five years, and even the use cases will be pretty
 > > shakey.  Without good models, bottom-up is our best bet.
 > 
 > Umm.. isn't that why we do markup and write DTDs?  They may not
 > last forever, but like mudbricks that cleave, they make a
 > reasonable structure and, well, beat the heck out of fighting bears
 > for caves.

Just so, but imagine if we had all waited to start writing DTDs until
ISO approved a master document architecture that would govern all DTDs
in the SGML and XML document space (kudos to HyTime for trying,
though).

This is the point that I (and others) have been making in this
discussion: a top-down approach (start with the master architecture)
can work for something like a new parts-management system for
ACME.com; a bottom-up approach (start with the components, such as
individual specs and DTDs) is pretty much required in an open and
fast-changing system like the Web.

As Paul Prescod has pointed out, however, in both cases the process is
really iterative: in a bottom-up approach, it's often useful to stop
and throw together a straw-man architecture to see if what we've done
so far makes sense together; in a top-down approach, it's often useful 
to stop and throw together some proof-of-concept components, to see if 
there will be any obvious implementation problems.  The difference
comes simply from which of the two is formalized.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Top-down or bottom-up?
    • From: Andy Dent <dent@o...>
  • Re: Top-down or bottom-up?
    • From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>

• References:
  • Re: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Top-down or bottom-up?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Top-down or bottom-up?
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Top-down or bottom-up?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Top-down or bottom-up?
    • From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Advice on DTD's
• Next by Date: RE: Namespace URI address resources
• Previous by thread: Re: Top-down or bottom-up?
• Next by thread: Re: Top-down or bottom-up?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread