Re: Just one more anecdote

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1122344688.525517.39350_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm sure there are numerous factors playing into the fact that the
> system touted in this MS Word document
>
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/ShowFile.asp?FileResourceID=1 611
>
> has been discontinued and written off to the tune of $67 million in s/w
> development as seen at
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050721/clth018.html?.v=16
>

From the above, it seems to me that this was an analysis failure, rather than a design failure.

> This is yet another instance where a legacy system written with a PICK
> (in this case), MUMPS, IMS, or other pre-relational database product
> didn't successfully make the jump to a SQL-RDBMS.
>

Is the axe sharp enough yet, Dawn?

> It is very likely that the conceptual data model and surely the
> subsequent logical data model from which the original system was
> developed would not play to the strengths of the SQL-DBMS. As much as
> we might want to think otherwise, even the design of a conceptual data
> model is influenced by the designer's knowledge of the target dbms. A
> redesign of the data model for a SQL-DBMS is likely to both bump
> features and increase complexity -- a harsh one-two punch.
>

A good conceptual model is implementation neutral. Again, analysis, rather than design.

> My conjecture is that downgrading, I mean moving, from a graph data
> model to a relational data model and from a PICK dbms to the SQL-DBMS
> were significant factors in this project failure. I could be wrong, of
> course.
>

You are assuming a fact not yet in evidence.

> smiles. --dawn

Is this your way of hinting that you are just jerking the chain on the denizens of this NG?

>
Received on Wed Jul 27 2005 - 15:19:40 CEST