Re: RM of [Organizational] Data

mountain man wrote:
> Organisational structure can be conceptually simplified in
> order to arrive at a basic overall framework for the structure
> into which more detailed descriptions of structure may be
> defined. In this sense, all possibilities are supported.

That makes no sense. You've just said that all organizations anywhere can be simplified (unsupportable, and simplified in what way?) to fit a model which is said to describe all organizations. In such a way, I can omit 0 and odds from the set of integers and declare that integer division always produces an integer. Lame analogy, but you get my point.

> Large distributed conglomerate organisations undergoing
> change of ownership of course present a more complex
> structure to model, but the basic simple principles (above)
> will always be able to be determined.

More unsupportable - given that you "can" simplify any organization to fit a model, you apparently have a model in mind for which you've found some necessary simplifications?

I'm not sure what you're asserting in all this. I asserted that organizational structures are potentially as complex as any other data to be modeled; you seem to believe there's a much simpler model that covers all of them with some required simplifications, but have yet to reveal the model or the required simplifications.

> IMO by implementing these things within the
> model of the [organisational] data, there may be expected
> to be a far greater use and utility of the model, because
> both these items are dynamic and require management
> (and admin, and wages, etc) alongside every single
> instance of the data (model) ---- without exception.

I'm unclear how modeling the organizations is different from modeling anything else, or allows a simpler model than general data. I understand that some parts of it will likely be hierarchical... most of the time. Other parts won't.

• erk