Re: Relation or attribute and why
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:05:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4476ee23$0$31642$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
David Cressey wrote:
> J M Davitt wrote:
>
>>"Me too!" Although I must admit, when describing systems at the >>conceptual level, we're seldom talking about data. One glaring >>counterexample is the Snodgrass and Jensen (I think, or was it >>Christiansen? ) description of the "Bitemporal Conceptual Data >>Model." It just goes to show...
>
> I agree with the above, but I think it's a sad state of affairs. A great
> many of today's systems fail because of sloppy analysis.
> Thinking about the data during the analysis phase somtimes forces the
> analysis to be "hard" rather than "soft". Analysis that is too soft is
> often dismissed as mere guidelines during design. The result is usually a
> good design that solves the wrong problem.
>
>>>A conceptual model and a conceptual data model >>>may or may not be the same thing. >> >>...that, "It all depends." And I have the uneasy feeling that >>somewhere along the line, we should shake off this cloak of >>relativism and settle upon language that gets us somewhere. >>Far too much time is spent explaining, "What I meant was..."
>
> I was leaving the question open with regard to the discussion in c.d.t.
> awaiting responses from other people. The two terms are quite clear in my
> own mind.
I haven't seen any real misunderstanding about them yet, which is why I didn't ask for inclusion in the c.d.t. glossary.
Everybody is welcome to suggest terms for the ToDo list of the glossary.
> Some of the time spent in c.d.t on the "what I meant was" issue is due to
> people who insist on a perverse reading of other people's comments, and on
> a disrespectful attitude towards other people's thinking. There is a lot of
> that going on in c.d.t. right now. Sharp incisive analysis of other
> people's comments is a good thing. Blunt insulting of other people is not.
"Sharp incisive analysis of other people's comments is a good thing. Blunt insulting of other people is not."
Well said!
[snip] Received on Fri May 26 2006 - 14:05:27 CEST