<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Software Modelling: Soft Focus or Hard Edges?</title>
	<link>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Troy Gardner</title>
		<link>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2054</link>
		<dc:creator>Troy Gardner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2054</guid>
		<description>Good post. I agree that agile and MDA are just two different tools in the toolbelt, part of the stuff I'm working on are to reduce the impedance mismatch between the various aspects (IA, design, code) and faciliate easy change, as even the best models may dash against the side of a road on a curve nobody could see.

Bring ducktape and a ruler ;)

http://troyworks.com/blog/?p=22#respond</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post. I agree that agile and MDA are just two different tools in the toolbelt, part of the stuff I&#8217;m working on are to reduce the impedance mismatch between the various aspects (IA, design, code) and faciliate easy change, as even the best models may dash against the side of a road on a curve nobody could see.</p>
<p>Bring ducktape and a ruler ;)</p>
<p><a href="http://troyworks.com/blog/?p=22#respond" rel="nofollow">http://troyworks.com/blog/?p=22#respond</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TroyWorks &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Agile vrs Model Driven Design</title>
		<link>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2053</link>
		<dc:creator>TroyWorks &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Agile vrs Model Driven Design</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2053</guid>
		<description>[...] Here&#38;#8217;s another vote for where Cogs and the related framwork comes in handy http://joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#more-55 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Here&#38;#8217;s another vote for where Cogs and the related framwork comes in handy <a href="http://joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#more-55" rel="nofollow">http://joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#more-55</a> [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe</title>
		<link>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2052</link>
		<dc:creator>joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 13:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2052</guid>
		<description>A model drawn on a whiteboard has some interesting aspects that a model in a document lacks:

* it has a "semantic soundtrack": as the model is drawn, an explanation is nearly always given with it.

* it unfolds in time: as someone draws and talks, the model appears in stages that make sense, rather than appearing all at once.

* it is communal: anyone in the conversation can walk up to it and change it

* it has a dead-simple user interface and zero cost, in contrast to most modelling software tools.

These all highlight a really important angle of modelling -- using models as useful conversational playthings, rather than as static representations of a "perfect" world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A model drawn on a whiteboard has some interesting aspects that a model in a document lacks:</p>
<p>* it has a &#8220;semantic soundtrack&#8221;: as the model is drawn, an explanation is nearly always given with it.</p>
<p>* it unfolds in time: as someone draws and talks, the model appears in stages that make sense, rather than appearing all at once.</p>
<p>* it is communal: anyone in the conversation can walk up to it and change it</p>
<p>* it has a dead-simple user interface and zero cost, in contrast to most modelling software tools.</p>
<p>These all highlight a really important angle of modelling &#8212; using models as useful conversational playthings, rather than as static representations of a &#8220;perfect&#8221; world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erik</title>
		<link>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2051</link>
		<dc:creator>Erik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 00:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.joeberkovitz.com/blog/2007/05/17/software-modelling-soft-focus-or-hard-edges/#comment-2051</guid>
		<description>The most useful applications of UML I have tend to be on a whiteboard -- visible, malleable, and transient.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most useful applications of UML I have tend to be on a whiteboard &#8212; visible, malleable, and transient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
