Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!usage.csd.unsw.oz.au!ccadfa!ghm
From: ghm@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: ER versus dependency normalization methods.
Message-ID: <2138@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au>
Date: 13 Dec 90 03:38:08 GMT
References: <358@6sigma.UUCP> <34324@netnews.upenn.edu> <1990Dec11.003251.4494@inel.gov> <2370@edat.UUCP> <1990Dec11.210145.11436@inel.gov>
Organization: Computer Centre, University College, UNSW, ADFA, Canberra, Australia
Lines: 26

cdm@gem-hy.Berkeley.EDU (Dale Cook) writes:

...stuff deleted...
>Don't get me wrong.  CASE tools are valuable.  They can take care of
>many mundane tasks, and make fewer errors in the process.  A large 
>part of their value lies in the forced rigor involved in getting the
>specifications to them.  The key here, however, is that CASE tools are
>just that - tools.  They still require human operators, and skilled
>ones at that.  Until a complete CASE system arrives which takes 
>some yet to be determined specification language and turns it into
>a finished, working system, they will not replace the current methods,
>IMHO.  And even IF that day arrives, you'll need a data analyst, system
>analyst, and programmer rolled into one to use it.

My problem with the CASE tools I have seen is that they are relatively
inflexible, being implementations of particular methodologies.  If you 
want to do something slightly different or non-standard, this can become
difficult.  There is also the question of transforming the design from 
the CASE software into a DBMS  -  maybe what would be useful here would
be a standard interface specification.  Application generator packages 
for a particular DBMS could then use a defined input format for taking
data from any CASE software.  This seems like a good idea  -  does anyone
know if it exists?

Geoff Miller  (ghm@cc.adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy