- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:58:00 -0000
- To: <abcoatesecure-w3c@yahoo.co.uk>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> So, what I should have said is that introducing "Person" as > the common superclass of "Employer" and "Employee" is > something you would normally do in the logical model, but you > would only do that in the conceptual model if the business > experts view the world that way. What I usually find is that after a couple of hours with a whiteboard, you change the way the business people see things. Suddenly they realize that they have been using a word like "channel" (as in a broadcasting channel - a real example) or "retailer" to mean three different things, and that this is why they were getting confused... Similarly, when you start asking questions like "How do you handle a customer who is also a supplier", you may well find one outpost of the organization that tells you "we lump them together and call them business partners", and then other people will say that's a good idea, we could do that too. So I don't really buy the idea that abstractions can be classified as business-oriented or technically-oriented. They arise from designing IT-enabled business processes, which tends to be a joint activity. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 15:58:21 UTC