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@(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)
Received on Wed Apr 27 2005 - 13:49:34 CDT
