Re: Modelling Considered Harmful

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:49:34 -0400
Message-Id: <gh35k2-6pq.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>


mAsterdam wrote:

>> 
>> I can't.  I offered the definitions in the OP and offered the observation
>> that a working db is more of a record-keeping system than a model.  You
>> say the words mean something to you w/o reference to the definitions, it
>> seems to be for you a free-floating axiom, which cannot be argued with.

>
> 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?
>

Not really. My phrasing would be, from a few posts up: "an erp system uses the records of demand to generate requests for supply, and to prove the requests were made by making a record of them." The allocation is not a model of the business, it is a process within the business. It is not a microcosm, which might justify the word "model", it is not a pattern used to build businesses, it just isn't a model, so I would not call it one.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)
Received on Wed Apr 27 2005 - 20:49:34 CEST

Original text of this message