RE: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
Matthew,
At 09:00 AM 5/8/2003 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>Dear Adam,
>
> > 1. What tools or methods can be demonstrated on a problem in
> > mapping, and
> > what are the advantages of one approach (as shown in an
> > example), over another
>
>MW: In ordinary database systems mapping has been going on for more than
>a decade. The maps between models are more usually known as interfaces,
>and in Shell at least a survey showed in the mid 90's that they accounted
>for 25-75% of the cost of new systems. Today there are systems that are
>dedicated to managing iterfaces, they often go under the name of ETL
>(Extract Translate Load) or EIA (Enterprise Integration Application).
>Where the former is for batch/transaction data and the latter for online
>federation of systems.
I'm certainly not questioning the need for mapping databases. What I am
asking is for someone to show IFF helping on a practical mapping problem,
in order to demonstrate its utility or advantages over other approaches.
> >
> > 2. Where are the particular concrete proposals of different
> > theories? It's fine to mention that such may exist, and certainly
> > different theories have been described in the literature, but until a
> > particular one is proposed that replaces a defined portion of
> > another, this
> > seems rather speculative for me. One could define an
> > alternative module
> > for SUMO, but no one has done so. Has something of that sort
> > been done in
> > EPISTLE?
>
>MW: We have certainly made changes to the way that EPISTLE models change.
>http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/InformationModellingPDT2002.pdf
>This brief paper gives an overview of how the two approaches relate to
>each other. Many implementations are still using the old approach, and
>for some purposes the old way may be better.
thanks for the reference, I'll take a look
Adam