Re: Specifying all biz rules in relational data
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:24:08 +0200
Message-ID: <414af38f$0$43451$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Laconic2 wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>
>>It strikes me as odd, that interactions in games >>would generally be more complex than interactions >>in your typical business.
>
> There are two distinct layers of interest in games: the mechanical layer,
> and the strategic layer.
>
> Programming the mechanical layer is challenging but straightforward.
> Consider "internet chess", between two (supposedly) human players. The
> program has to be able to depict the board, judge the legality of proposed
> moves, and relay moves between the players. That's some programming, but
> ultimately fairly straightforward.
>
> If you want to write a program to play chess, the main focus is strategic:
> how to pick a better move.
Metaphores only get you so far, but I'll try to squeeze some more out of this one anyway.
A suite of applications for the interaction called chess:
For playing think of computer assisted chess (in chess this would be
cheating, but this is just because of the limitation of the
metaphore, so while squeezing let's ignore that): nicely visualized,
personalized opening and endgame libraries, combination-player,
similar position look-ups, game-recording, time-managementsupport.
However
1) a chess-player does not only play, and
2) he doesn't play on his own.
ad 1) side activities: studying, publishing, so: diagram-editor, library composer/reader, trainer.
ad 2) group activities: time-keeping, club and tournament match pairing, competition results administration and publishing (trying to stay focused, I am not going into general club stuff), rating system, collaborative reviewing and studying software.
> Likewise, in business, there are two very different layers: the
> operational and the strategic. One could argue that there's a third layer,
> the tactical one, between them. I'll leave that for another day.
Ok :-)
> The goal of most businesses is to make their operational level as
> transparent and simple as possible. But they would like to keep their
> strategic level as opaque as they can keep it.
>
> Note that simplicity of operations is an ACTIVE goal in business. Not so in
> games. Chess is arguably more complex than checkers, and is arguably more
> popular because of its complexity. A business that's hard to sell to or
> hard to buy from, solely because its interface is complex, is more likely
> to fail. A website that is too complex, in comparison to the competition,
> is also more likely to fail.
>
> So simplicity and success are linked in business in a way that they are not
> necessarily linked in games. I would suggest that those in this discussion
> who have focussed on CRUD are looking at the operational level rather than
> the strategic level.
The strategic/(tactical/)operational level of information does not impact the structure, and the other way around: the structure does not give you a clue about the level.
Say our press agency maintains a nice little database with candidates for the next presidents cabinet, built from our reliable secret sources - would this CRUD be strategic or operational?
> When you get to the strategic level, business is every bit as complex as
> the most complex games that are widely played. I would suggest that
> business is the ultimate game.
War and politics are competing for that title :-)
> Consider two stock market applications. One manages puts and calls, and
> matches them up with each other so that the transactions can be consummated
> and cleared. It also makes transactions somewhat transparent, in that the
> price is reflected on the board. Such an application is a major challenge.
> But ultimitely it will be kept as simple as possible.
Agreed.
> Now consider another stock market application, one that generates puts and
> calls. Simplicity is probably not an acheivable virtue in this application.
Hmm... I still think simplicity, at least at the surface is imperative here, too. Received on Fri Sep 17 2004 - 16:24:08 CEST