Re: [ontolog-forum] Webs and Fabrics

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Sowa,

 

Did you know Barry Boehm?

Some of the article from "Mythical Man month"  was discussed in 1990 as part of Software Engineering / project management curriculum along with Barry Boehm. Software Cost / duration / estimation model at GMU.  GMU had bought Wang institute and was one of the first few schools to offer a software engineering program vs computer science and computer engineering program.  Barry Boehm had also developed the spiral model for software development life cycle that rational used at a later time. 

I read Fred Brooks's newer article " No silver bullet" too..

I do agree with his opinion and have kept that in mind during software project planning.

 

 However efficiency in coding ( lines of code, and duration taken to develop and effectiveness of algorithm, no errors ..)  varies according to each person to a great degree.    So even if you hire 50 bad programmers at the beginning of the project, and decide to replace or add two good ones when behind the schedule, one may be still making a good decision.   But I also had people with no orientation towards computer programming, but were business analysts ( good communicators), had good language skills and people oriented, did not develop all the business requirements or rules well.  . They consistently complained about programmers too.. because they did not understand how to capture things like first order logic, or second order logic and relationships or parent child relationship and dependency and constraints and  missed documenting them in business verbiage as part of the business requirements document.    One can not cook up business rules while coding, if they were not documented and formalized and adopted by the business folks in an organization.

We have used custom built business rules, requirement gathering software in the industry much before rationale rose built one.    But were they captured well.. ??   That depended on the business analyst. 

 

I think if business Analysts and system architects are very efficient, coding gets much more easier and simpler..

 

I agree that an architectural concept that ( the layered cake ) model that Tim BL proposed and all of us have kept in mind,  and that itself does not constitute a framework.   People have been talking of  Web 3.0 and the capabilities they like to see on the web.    Some of them are in place without actually meddling with Semantic web technologies..     

 

Re evaluate how the world wants to use  web again and  formalize Semantic Web with appropriate framework and methodologies may be a good idea?   May be  NIST can provide founding for it.. ??    ( Count me in if you get any funding.. )!   I have to re learn from the all the links that you have provided about Tim B L again to refresh my thoughts,   So you may not hear from me soon.

Regards,

Pavithra

--- On Wed, 10/27/10, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Webs and Fabrics
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 2:32 PM

Pavithra,

I changed the subject line back to show its connection to the
previous thread.  The fundamental principle to think about is
*integration*.  How can all these tools be integrated in a
systematic development methodology?

Anybody can throw things into a pot.  That's what happens when you
have too many cooks.  They spoil the broth by throwing in stuff
without any thought or planning or testing or demonstrations about
how the new stuff is related to anything else already in the pot or
to any use cases about how the stuff in the pot is going to be served.

> In my opinion,  RIF should capture all the business rules and policies
> by industry.   And Ontology should address the entity, structure and
> relationships..     They are side by side on Semantic Web Layered cake ..

Putting things side by side is not integration.

RIF is one more example of 1980s technology that has not been integrated
with the other components of the SemWeb or with other software that
people have been developing and using over the past half century.

Please reread Fred Brooks's _Mythical Man Month_.  As you read it,
just replace any reference to IBM committees with the W3C, and you
can see the problem.

Fundamental principle:  Large committees are good at evaluating and
critiquing a system, but they are incapable of designing a smoothly
functioning integrated system.

John

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)