The ORM Foundation

Hi Ken,

We're just wondering if Richmond can have a Forum topic under 'Tools'.

Richmond is our ORM offering which is taking shape rather rapidly now.

For anyone reading this who has ever developed a graphical conceptual modeling tool from the ground up (and I know many in this forum fit this bill), you'd know that it is extremely hard work, and I liken it to climbing Mt Everest and just as plodding (not that I've climbed Mt E, but I've watched enough videos to draw the comparison).

We want to provide regular updates on our progress, share in discussions on the ORM meta-model, and invite forum readers if they would like to participate in our Beta-Test programme. i.e. like any 'expedition' our morale isn't built in solitary, it's drawn by feeback and inclusion of beneficiaries of the expedition and the greater community.

It's early days, but we've just broken the back of FactTypes and (from experience building Niam+)...that is about the most complex and challenging structure in a greater ORM model (from a GUI/event model perspective). 

 Here's a quick video of dealing with Ternary FactTypes, and rapid allocation of (internal) Uniqueness Constraints....

         http://www.viev.com/resources/videos/VideoOrmFoundation3.htm

 For those interested, we've given our commitment to Dr Halpin that we will deliver an ORM v2.0 compliant tool, and in essense, we are very gladdened that ORM has a strong 'community' with an overwhelming strong 'good-will' that we would like to think will keep standards tight. This is a great achievement, owing much to the hard work of the ORM advocates, and indeed...this site. We aspire to match that high standard.

 Anyway Ken, this is a long term commitment for my company. We have a strong track record of delivering, so vapour-ware is not something we even think about. If you believe it'd be okay to have Richmond in the line up and we can start doing our bit, and getting feedback, that'd be great. We'd really appreciate it.

Best regards

Victor 

Viev 

Hi Victor,

Good idea. However, I'm almost at the limit on the number of forums.
So what I propose is to consolidate all of the non-NORMA tools into a single forum called "other tools" and have a thread for each tool - including Richmond.

Would this be OK for you?

Ken

Hi Ken,

Thank you. While nORMa is good, I wouldn't go as far as to say I'd support that proposal.  What has impressed me so far about ORMFoundation.org is that it is (on the whole)...'all about ORM', rather than 'all about nORMa'.

For example, how can we have serious discussion on a common meta-model if there is (hypothetically) more than obvious bias towards nORMa on the site in general?

To me, it comes down to 'relevance'. In as much as ORMFoundation.org is impartial (on the whole) today, it is extremely relevant. The moment a forum loses impartiality, I feel a site loses relevance all together, and becomes a 'marketing conduit'...analogous to a tabloid with page 3 photos, than a serious journal/amalgam of good science.

I feel the true strength of ORM is 'standardisation', and that has been quite democratically alloyed (albeit with limited voting points to select members of an unknown club...readers my take of that what they will, but I for one accept this principal, 'in principal').

Sure, we compete with nORMa, but that's got to be good. I hope Mat looks at my videos and says 'I better look at that', and visa versa. On the other hand, we have a vision very different from nORMa, and so while the tools will have features in common, they diverge quite significantly and quickly.

Our vision is long term. When the ORM community heads towards standardisation with a body like ISO, OMG or wherever, there will have to be parties at the table. e.g. if those parties all represent nORMa, then the 'standard' (in my opinion) is tainted.

In our opinion, there needs to be commercial interests involved in the activity of competition, and if we extrapolate nORMa from academia to the commercial interests behind academia, (e.g. books, course fees, appearance fees, salaries etc), and to countenance that we enter an area for which speaking is futile and which is something akin to a petty squabble, and I don't want to talk about it.

I say, "I like the way it is...with nORMa at the top of the list (showing an obvious, and understandable, bias) and with the challengers underneath. Let the customers/market decide". And you'd have to say, readers here are quite bright and well informed.

(No offence to CogNIAM or others who would, of course, 'not' see themselves as challengers, but ‘standard setters'...and therein lies my point/request to reason).

Best regds

Victor
Viev

Hi Victor,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Sorry - but I clearly failed to make my points so I will try again.
* There is a technical limit on the number of forums I can add to this website and we are just about at that limit.
* Several of the "tool forums" I created are not used so they are a waste of "forum resource"
* The choice is between deleting the unused forums completely or creating a single forum "other tools" in which they have threads.

Thus the issue is nothing to do with "marketing" it is all about finding an equitable way of making effective use of limited resources in the service of "user needs" as demonstrated by the number of posts in each forum.

Given these facts, what is your suggestion?

Ken

Hi Ken,

Well, let's go with what you suggest then. By all means, I don't want to have any other Forum/Topic deleted just to satisfy any need that I might personally have. That'd be silly.

Oh, heck, for want of a pun...it 'is' in the 'marketing'...thus the use of 'facts' (plug plug for ORM).

Thank you Ken, I'll go with your suggestion.

Best regds

Victor