[MD] MOQ and Art

[ian glendinning]

Hi Peter,

Yes, agreed, ontology / taxonomy is "intentional".

Day-job-wise, the example situation you describe is about expectation
management and business relationships.

Whether you conveniently chose a lean / literal intepretation of
stated "wants"or a richer interpretation of literal plus implicit
"needs", it would be good sense to reflect the assumptions back to the
customer (to establish agreed scope / met expectations and any
options), before taking his money. To do otherwise would be
sharp-practice; Something a fly-by-night cowboy could do, but only
once ;-)

Regards
Ian

On 9/7/06, Peter Corteen <psigenics at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> I see what you are saying that what happens to us is pure Taxonomy when you
> get right down to it. And yet there is intention within it; the intention is
> different in different levels.
>
> Re the day job: do you then second guess them and just assume they would
> want it the best way you could design it and provide a solution in say 5
> days, or do you supply them initially with only the minimum of functionality
> adhering leanly to the bare requirements and deliver something in only 3
> days, hoping they will then point out some usage improvements or even
> suggesting some ideas to them yourself?
>
> Peter
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>