Re: Conceptual, Logical, and Physical views of data

From: FrankHamersley <FrankHamersleyZat_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:31:18 GMT
Message-ID: <qaWTe.26603$FA3.26280@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

David Cressey wrote:
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message

>>dawn wrote:
>>>David  Cressey wrote:
>>>>"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>David  Cressey wrote:
>>>>>>"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote

[..]
>

>>IMO the laxity (or flexibility when speaking in +ve terms) of feature
>>laden or low discipline products, whilst producing quick and easy
>>solutions to apparently knotty problems, is lethal for instance when the
>>life-cycle issues of maintenance by non original staff etc eventually
>>arise.  This issue of instant gratification is exemplified by the MS
>>sponsored diet of Fairy Floss (sugar) proffered by tools such as Access
>>and DTS.  I don't think I would be alone in bemoaning the number of
>>times a concept solution has been presented using those type of tools
>>with an expectation of it being corporatised quickly and cheaply given
>>that all the "heavy lifting" of determining the business rules has been
>>done!
>>

>
> This is a knotty problem. On the one hand, prototyping can be a very useful
> adjunct to other forms of requirements analysis.
> On the other hand, non technical people can seldom understand why it's a
> good idea to throw the prototype away, and build from scratch, once you
> have understood the problem. What we need is a way to make issues of scale
> visible to people graphically. If we showed someone a four foot model of
> the replacement for the World Trade Center, they wouldn't imagine that
> building the real thing would be "easy".
>
> Then again, it should be quicker and less costly than it is now to turn a
> correct and detailed analysis into a deliverable product. That's another
> discussion.

IMO closing this chasm is one of the things that the industry has never gained much traction on. The "new and improved" tools that (perhaps) are designed to address this issue, seem largely to simply be a means that allows less rigorous people to enter the industry. Sadly this seems to maintain a status quo rather than generate progress.

Regards, Frank. Received on Thu Sep 08 2005 - 07:31:18 CDT