Dear Paola, (01)
> > I know from experience that software engineers often try to
> build their
> > artefacts to accommodate potential future changes. How to
> do this is an
> > active area of debate.
> - we got to this point a few months back
> are there patterns of change?
> time is one of the factors that determines patterns of change
> > If you want to argue that fruitfulness is not yet well
> understood - I would
> > Anyway, the point I wished to make is that providing an
> artefact that will
> > somehow support requirements that I have not yet specified
> is recognised as
> > an important consideration by software engineers and has
> its counterpart
> > 'fruitfulness' in science.
> important point too - fruitfulness, or at least 'fitness for purpose'
> if the fruitfulness debate is not going to be conclusive quickly
> enough (02)
MW: No. "fit-for-purpose" is the enemy of fruitfulness. Fit-for-purpose
says that it is good enough if it does just what I need and no more.
Fruitfulness is about the unexpected usefulness that was not part of
the original purpose. (03)
MW: By the way, fruitfulness is not more expensive (in my experience)
than fit-for-purpose. It is mostly about the way you approach problem
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 621148
Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (06)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)