• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:05:09 +0800

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?

Rick Jelliffe

• Prev by Date: RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))
• Next by Date: RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))
• Previous by thread: RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))
• Next by thread: RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode lConcepts?))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread