[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode lConce
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. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:05 PM To: XML DEV Subject: Re: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Model Concepts?)) From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@i...> >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?
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|