| Late at night I sent my message not just to Tassilo but to Ontolog. No harm done I hope?
My challenge to UML is its overweening dominance. As I said, the “flow paradigm” and the specification tools are versions of those employed in Taylor’s work study analyses of factory operations, via office work study.
The fundamentally different “knowledge field" methods we developed worked so well that think it is worth challenging UML’s dominance. That does not imply that UML should be dispensed with. I agree with John, those tools with have plenty of use still. I still keep that ancient tool, the bradawl for making small holes.
The problem with a paradigm that leads people to think of organisation as a matter of information plumbing is that it fails to make the analyst think carefully enough about the purpoaed of an organisation.
I have been shocked by some of the dismissive reactions to criticism of UML. I hope to see our methods tested on more actual problems. Experience so far suggest that that the risk is very low. But I’m told that the unwillingness of business to examine our methods is summed up in the wise managers’ motto “No one was sacked for using IBM”
There are two papers on a website that I’ve had no time to augment while occupied as a carer. So forgive its limited value.
Comments will be welcome.
Ronald
|