Raise your level of abstraction
The forum seems very quiet for a long time. Is that all problems have been resolved yet?
Recently thinking about modeling relationship and find there is a need for, or some natural and explicit distinction between "model-driven" and "model-based". A proposal is as follows:
It is better to discuss the issue on a clearer target, a function (and then extend to such as a system has some functions). I suggest defining
a function is model-based if it is based on the model(s) of the functional target, i.e. the thing that will be influenced by the function; thus, say a system is model-based if its major functions are model-based.
In the paper, I call that identity between the thing being modeled and the target of the function based on the model. Further, defining
a model-based function/system is model-driven, if the model is changeable in the system at runtime, e.g., allows to change it when the function is executing or before each execution.
(more details in my blog at Distinguishing Model-Driven from Model-Based)
Looking forward your comments.
I guess everything got so awesome and responsive lately, that models became a bit unfashionable (based ones as well as driven ones).
What about "Responsive Business Design"?
[ ] I like that so much
Hi Andreas, nice to see you!
It seems that in the last twenty years, some of the IT industry more and more like the fashion industry...
"Responsive Business Design"? first heard about.
I was just half-seriously kidding.
Actually, why not call modern MDx "RBD" instead? The term is apt.
(Anyone listening from Gartner?)
Gatner, a lot of people adore her. Isn't RBD a new abbreviation of them?
Consulting industry must continue to define new concepts for making money. :-D
There are too many buzzwords in this era, when people see the real new ideas but become listless.
> Isn't RBD....
Not yet ;-)