Re: Modelling Considered Harmful

Kenneth Downs wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>>Kenneth Downs wrote:
>>>gnuoytr wrote:
>>>
>>>>but an ERP/BOM database is used as a guide to build widgets.
>>>
>>>an erp system is uses the records of demand to generate requests for
>>>supply, and to prove the requests were made by making a record of them.
>>>Record-keeping.  The allocation process makes it automated record-keeping
>>>actually.
>>
>>The way I use this vocabulary: "The allocation process is the model
>>of one aspect of the business, it's datamodel is a part of that
>>model. The database and procedures conforming to that model provide
>>the record-keeping to support this aspect of the business."
>>
>>ISTM this makes sense, and I don't (yet? convince me :-) see how
>>making this statement without the word model would better help me
>>understand.

I did provide some context for the use of "model", the term you oppose. If you insist that you can't argue without accepted defintions, well then, just assume I accept your favourite definition of model (except maybe 4. in the OP. BTW I don't think calling a person posing for a picture a model is silly at all. It clearly states the role of the person in the situation.).

Next, I ask you: Does this statement ("The allocation process is the model of one aspect of the business...") make sense to you or not?

> As for allocation, it is a process. Before computers it was conducted by
> people.

And it still is. By fewer people, yes.

> Unless they were striking in appearance, we did not call them
> models. The program replaces a human being in performing a record-keeping
> task, nothing more.

Are 'model' and 'record-keeping' things on the same scale? I don't see it. Received on Wed Apr 27 2005 - 19:28:41 CEST