On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Simon St.Laurent <> wrote:
> Frankly, when building data models, I'd much rather have a mix of skill
> levels and perspectives involved. Different participants have different
> views on the data, but there's often more than just views on the same data
> model - there are often different internalized data models.
>
> Combining those different models with data structures requires more than
> just careful data design. I'd argue it involves programming,
> transformations at minimum, that ensure that the data presented meets local
> expectations. That's never easy, but I don't think it's avoidable.
>
> It's been a long time since I've been involved with this in an XML context
> (though I'm starting to work with it in a database context again), so I'm a
> bit cautious about saying this. Nonetheless, it seems so obviously true to
> me that I might as well.
>
You might consider yourself "retired" but I for one think you are
right on here. I can't really see why there is much other discussion:
SME's are going to understand the problem domain, system designers
and architects are going to have to translate this into a design into
something that meets the logical and physical requirements of the
application.
The real discussion should be about _how_ to do that, but for the most
part that should also be business as usual; interview, map data flows,
model the data domain; abstract / normalize, validate the design with
the SME and other users; iterate again until you have it close enough
for a prototype then do the same thing all over again until your
prototype has grown up into a real application. The fact that you're
using XML should not change the way turn requirements into an logical
architecture.
--
Peter Hunsberger
