| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> 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 - 12:28:41 CDT
![]() |
![]() |