Praise be for the sight of our erstwhile über data architect, pontificating on the nature of content engineering strategies and all things modelled. It’s been far too long since Kristen has regailed us with those neatly crafted unified product model things that she does, but I guess that’s what happens when they make you a director. You have to do all that director stuff instead. Thank goodness I’m at least 3 steps removed from that particular career move then, right?
In the web experience design team, we have a number of ongoing projects that really are all about how the data we’re using is architected (which is not a real word, surely), in order that they have any chance of success. In reference to Kristen’s latest entry, this is mostly to do with how we define the data sets for products, such that we are able to build efficient, manageable content management capabilities while also being able to easily organize the information across multiple venues and in multiple formats. But it’s also about understanding the key attributes of our products that really differentiate them in our customer’s minds, and how we design for interactions, based on those attributes as selection criteria, whether they be as filters for directed searching, or determining navigation hierarchies. I think I may have almost made some sense there. What I’m really saying is that if we don’t have people with large brains figuring out our data architecture, then the value of the systems we manage and render that data with approaches zero. There’s probably an appropriate reference to polishing waste product I could use here to labour the point, but I wouldn’t do that.
As well as enlightening those of us with smaller brains, of the things Kristen gets to do in her blog entries, which I’m kind of jealous of, is add all those code fragments and scary-looking class diagrams. I can do screenshots in the dark and post those, right-aligned, but I just don’t have any groovy code stuff to share, and I know people like that stuff. So I’ve taken to stealing some of hers and rolling my own.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <stolen-object> <label>Data Model Browser - CEDM 1.0</label> <explanation> <p>The CEDM Data Model Browser describes concepts and attributes that are core to the <b>Tim Code Envy Data Model</b>. This version [CEDM 1.0] covers Tim's pathetic code envy as it is represented in <b>blogs.sun.com, timcaynes.com, and most other places</b>. Things that describe tantrums, impotence, or just plain stupidity are not included in CEDM, but they should be</p> </explanation> <concept id="envy"> <label>Envy</label> <explanation>Actual thing to be envious about. The core frustration to the model owner (e.g. "You've got loads of code about data and stuff and I don't have any, boo hoo."). </explanation> <implementation-guideline> Use an idiot as a stand-in for the envy itself </implementation-guideline> <association ref="wetfish-id"/> <association ref="name"> <constraint>Strictly syndicated through a wet fish</constraint> </association> <association ref="description"/> <association ref="image"/> <association> </concept> </stolen-object>
There. I feel better already.
Listening Post: Supergrass: Sitting Up Straight