Re: Process Model

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:59:01 GMT
Message-ID: <V8Gbg.10236$A26.252515_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

David Cressey wrote:

> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:rKkbg.9815$A26.243595_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>

>>David Cressey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The term "process model" seems to have raised a lot of questions, and

>
> not to
>

>>>have conveyed what I intended to convey.
>>>
>>>Here's an example that illustrates, roughly, what I mean by a "process
>>>model".  This is a brief quote from "Object Oriented Analysis" by Coad

>
> and
>

>>>Yourdon.
>>>
>>>"The underlying strategy of functional decomposition consists of

>
> selecting
>

>>>the processing steps and sub-steps anticipated for a new system.

>
> Analysts
>

>>>use previous experience from similar systems, combined at times with an
>>>examination of required outputs.  The focus is on what processing is
>>>required for the new system.  The analyst then specifieas the processing

>
> and
>

>>>functional interfaces."
>>>
>>>As far as I can tell, functional decomposition results in a process

>
> model.
>

>>>Every information system I've dealt with was, at some stage of its
>>>development, described by a process model and a data model.  Sometimes

>
> these
>

>>>models were implicit and non verbalized,  but they were models

>
> nonetheless.
>

>>I will assume Coad and Yourdon used 'functional decomposition' in its
>>engineering sense and not in the computing sense for dividing tasks for
>>parallel execution.

>
> Coad and Yourden were discussing analysis, and mentioned functional
> decomposition as a way of analyzing the problem domain. They were building
> towards a motivation for object oriented analysis, the subject of the book.

I am familiar with the book. I read it years ago, and I stand by all of my earlier statements.

The whole field of OO is full of nebulous imprecision--the very essense of elixirs and their illusive powers.

You posited some 'thing' unique to object orientation from which others could learn or which one could apply to other fields, and you gave it a name: 'process model'. The term is not well-defined and instead of offering a definition, you quoted some tangential material from a book that was in turn borrowed from other fields of engineering.

If object orientation is so great, why do OO proponents so universally lack the powers of succinct, direct communication? Received on Sat May 20 2006 - 16:59:01 CEST