Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@s...> wrote: > Frankly, when building data models, I'd much rather have a mix of skill > levels and perspectives involved. Different participants have different > views on the data, but there's often more than just views on the same data > model - there are often different internalized data models. > > Combining those different models with data structures requires more than > just careful data design. I'd argue it involves programming, > transformations at minimum, that ensure that the data presented meets local > expectations. That's never easy, but I don't think it's avoidable. > > It's been a long time since I've been involved with this in an XML context > (though I'm starting to work with it in a database context again), so I'm a > bit cautious about saying this. Nonetheless, it seems so obviously true to > me that I might as well. > You might consider yourself "retired" but I for one think you are right on here. I can't really see why there is much other discussion: SME's are going to understand the problem domain, system designers and architects are going to have to translate this into a design into something that meets the logical and physical requirements of the application. The real discussion should be about _how_ to do that, but for the most part that should also be business as usual; interview, map data flows, model the data domain; abstract / normalize, validate the design with the SME and other users; iterate again until you have it close enough for a prototype then do the same thing all over again until your prototype has grown up into a real application. The fact that you're using XML should not change the way turn requirements into an logical architecture. -- Peter Hunsberger
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
