Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!bellcore!porthos!taichi!haim
From: haim@taichi.uucp (24122-Haim Kilov(L028)m000)
Subject: Re: Pictorial Case Tools
Reply-To: haim@taichi.UUCP (24122-Haim Kilov)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 30 May 91 14:58:14 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May30.145814.20880@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
References: <1991May28.165251.4840@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> <8839@drutx.ATT.COM>
Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)

In response to:

> The question becomes, "Do bubbles and arcs express some relevant aspect
> of the system being designed in a convenient and precise language?" "
>
> -- the most important question seems to be: "do bubbles and arcs represent
> a _precise_ language?"

How about "Do bubbles and arcs represent a *more precise* language than
what you are using currently?" If you are using plain old English, then
the answer is yes.

Sharon Badian
att!druhi!seb1


----- I'd like to note that all too often pictures used in, e.g., "ER diagrams"
are incomplete, inconsistent, or both. As a result, important aspects of
the modeled system are relegated to the "data dictionary" where they are
expressed as "comments". Note that I'm not trying to defend plain old English.
There exist other means (e.g., predicate calculus). A picture may help to
understand _some_ aspects of a system, misunderstand some other aspects, 
and may be irrelevant at all for some other aspects.

Design and programming are the same activity done on different levels of
abstraction. Correctness concerns are of utmost importance for both. And, in
the same manner as "flowcharts" are inadequate for program development, 
pictures are inadequate for "system" development.

-Haim Kilov
haim@bcr.cc.bellcore.com