SIGIA-L Mail Archives: RE: [Sigia-l] love thy client (was Re: [
RE: [Sigia-l] love thy client (was Re: [Sigia-l] "Study: Content Management Tools Fail")
From: Boniface Lau (boniface_lau_at_compuserve.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 20:54:56 EST
> From: sigia-l-admin_at_asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin_at_asis.org]On
> Behalf Of John O'Donovan
> > May be it is time to re-read that article. The things you claimed
> > missing were there.
> I never referenced it in the first place.
Sorry, when I said "the things you claimed missing", I was referring
to the criticism that you wrote earlier regarding the waterfall model.
Since the model came from Royce's article, I suggested that you
re-read that article.
> You will find that Royce never mentioned the term waterfall in the
Sometimes a new idea is first discussed and then later given a name.
Thus, you won't find that name mentioned in the original discussion.
Same with the original article on the waterfall model.
> - the thrust of his argument was different. Waterfall is the
> sequential, linear trap that is the problem.
That is your personal understanding of the waterfall model. But the
software industry refers to Royce's 1970 article for the waterfall
model. That model is not linear.
> If I remember, Figure 2 would be the completely linear approach that
> became the waterfall but this was not his recommendation.
Amazing! You said you'd read Royce's article "a very long time ago".
And yet when I merely referred to "Figure 2" without even telling you
the figure caption, you "remembered" the drawing in it. I am amazed at
your unusually good "memory". ;-)
Anyway, Figure 2 is one of the drawings illustrating the waterfall
model. In particular, Figure 2 focused on the steps of what Royce
described as a "fundamentally sound" approach. Those steps are parts
of Royce's recommendation.
> However, this approach is what became widely used and associated
> with him
"Widely used and associated" by whom?
By people who are serious about the subject matter? They would have
referred to Royce's 1970 article for the waterfall model. The model
described there is not linear at all.
By people who learned of the waterfall model from hearsay? There are
always people who don't know what they are talking about. They might
not have even heard of the name Royce in association with the
But when people based their criticism on the hearsay as if it is the
waterfall model and do not give a reference to the waterfall model
that they are criticizing, they compound the misunderstanding by
adding to the hearsay.
> - that's why I say it was not his fault.
ISTM the fault was with people talking about the waterfall model
without giving any references to the model. It was like the article
that you mentioned earlier:
It focused on the Spiral Model but did not even give a single
reference to the model. That is sloppy. So, when I saw a misstatement
in that article, I was not sure whether the article was indeed
referring to Boehm's Spiral Model. But people who learn from hearsay
will just pick up the misstatement and associate it with Barry Boehm's
Spiral Model. Another mis-represented model in the making.
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments
ASIST IA 03 Summit: Making Connections
Searchable list archive: http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l_at_asis.org
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:55:39 EST