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
solving. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew West
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
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|