On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 14:48 +0000, Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Paul,
> So why do you think we still have double entry book keeping?
> (01)
Matthew, (02)
I did not mean to imply that no pre-computer process was suitable for
computerization. Accounting is not my field, but my sense is that many
of the pencil-and-paper practices of that domain go directly over into
software with no loss of meaning and great gains in accuracy and
productivity. (03)
Not so with the domains of activity that have shaped my career: document
management and product data management. I think these fields were poorly
served by the first generations of software developed for them because
the applications were designed around the means of those processes
(stringing words together on paper and inking lines on mylar) rather
than the ends (communicating ideas from one person's mind to another's). (04)
So although we are several decades and software generations into the era
of distributed computing, those problems are still confronting us. Just
this month I witnessed a major ERP system go-live, the design of which
is replete with vestigial features that reduplicate pre-computer means
of activities that should have been obsolete long ago. (05)
Regards,
--Paul (06)
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Tyson
> > Sent: 16 February 2013 02:14
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Architectural considerations in
Ontology
> > Development
> >
> > On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 18:55 -0500, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> > > Paul Tyson wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't know the history of computer graphics applications, but
> > > > something similar must have happened--the early developers
looked at
> > > > draftsmen putting lines and curves on mylar and decided to write
a
> > > > program to put lines and curves on a CRT. It's taken several
> > > > generations of graphics software (each having to "interoperate"
with
> > > > the previous generation) to really begin to augment the
engineer's
> > > > primary goal of communicating design intent--and some people
still
> > > > don't believe that's possible without honoring the conventions
of
> antique
> > draftsmanship.
> > >
> > > Well, part of the problem was to get an effective computational
> > > representation of solid geometry, and the tools that did that
began to
> > > emerge after academic feasibility demonstrations in the mid 1980s.
> > > And part of that feasibility was having fast enough processors,
> > > accurate arithmetic, and fine enough graphical resolution and fast
> > > enough graphics refresh. That is, a mere 4 or 5 technologies were
> > > needed to enable that.
> >
> > I'm not sure I buy all of that, since there are examples of system
designs
> > that outstrip available technology or outpace current requirements
in
> > passionate pursuit of a goal: some of da Vinci's machines, Knuth's
TeX
> > typesetting system, and sendmail come to mind.
> >
> > More to the point of this forum and thread: when (if ever) is it OK
to
> merely
> > "pave over the cow path" by reimplementing concepts, conventions,
and
> methods,
> > largely unchanged, from pre-computer processes into computer
systems? Did
> the
> > early graphics application developers really say to themselves:
"Look, we
> know
> > that these engineers actually need to communicate all the essential
> physical,
> > functional, and process characteristics of their designs, but that's
way
> more
> > than we know how to do at this time. Currently they get by with
inked
> lines on
> > mylar, notes and callouts, and parts lists. We can do that much
> > electronically, so let's go for it!"
> >
> > And then the designers of the Nth generation of the software have to
> decide
> > (assuming they even have some awareness of the problem) whether or
not to
> put
> > yet another layer of asphalt on the cow path to preserve vestigial
> features
> > from an initial choice to render into software what should never
have been
> > there in the first place.
> >
> > >
> > > BTW, putting accurate lines and curves on a CRT from a digital
source,
> > > rather than an analog recording, was no small feat in 1970, when
the
> > > early graphical CRTs first appeared (at significant cost). As
late as
> > > 1990 the cost of top of the line graphics terminals was in the
30K$
> > > range, and had been since the first ones 20 years earlier, which
is a
> > > big difference in constant dollars, and had a big impact on the
size
> > > of the potential market. The Tektronix folk made the
> > > price/performance breakthrough about 1974, and dominated the
market
> > > for 10 years until cheap raster technology emerged that could
> > > approximate the accuracy of their technology.
> > >
> > > And for the record, the antique draftsmanship conventions have a
> > > different motivation -- long-term archival of the engineering
models.
> > > What CAD form from 1985 can still be processed? Do you think all
> > > those 1985 aircraft have been junked? Do refineries built in the
> > > 1980s still function? If we now commit to saving the latest and
> > > greatest Pro-Engineer solid models in native form, what tools will
be
> > > able to read the recording media and decode the model and display
the
> > > holographic images in 2025, let alone 2050? If you are
authorizing
> > > the construction of a nuclear plant, what archival form of the
> > > engineering models are you going to require? Maybe those antique
> > > draftsmen still have a value.
> >
> > There's probably no bigger fan (except you, perhaps) of fine
engineering
> > draftsmanship in this forum than me. I'm intrigued by the processes
of
> > recording and communicating the design of complex products, and I
think
> the
> > engineering and architectural drafting practices of the 20th century
> brought
> > this to a high art. I also think those practices were translated
into
> > suboptimal computer systems for achieving the same goals,
notwithstanding
> some
> > obvious local gains in productivity and precision.
> > One troublesome symptom of the suboptimization is the archiving
problem,
> so
> > that 40+ years into the era we still fall back to 2d drafting
> representations
> > for long-term storage. (Of course, the reluctance of CAD vendors to
fully
> > support common standards for product model representation is much to
blame
> for
> > this also. See my point 6 in previous post.)
> >
> > Regards,
> > --Paul
> >
> > >
> > > I agree with Paul's sentiment, but the business of engineering
models
> > > is important, it is very high tech, and it is fraught with all
kinds
> > > of very real business constraints.
> > >
> > > -Ed
> > >
> > > --
> > > Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> > > National Institute of Standards & Technology Systems Integration
> > > Division
> > > 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Work: +1 301-975-3528
> > > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
> > >
> > > "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and
> > > have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|