Talk:Story-driven modeling

Untitled

Hello, there was an article on Story-driven modelling (with two l) which is the british spelling. The modelling technique it is about uses the american spelling Story-driven modelling with one l. Thus I have created a new article and copied the old content and changed the old article to become a redirection to the new article. Is this OK?

By the way: I should flag a conflict of interest. I have been involved in the development of the Story-Driven modelling approach. Its not just me, but a bunch of people involved. Its the result of 15 years of scientific work in the area of software engineering with about 100 people involved. I stepped on the articles on agile modelling and object-oriented modelling and felt that an article on Story-driven modelling is missing and I felt that I am the best fit for writing it.

I tried to be as neutral as I could.

Shall I try to find some independent co-authors to review / rewrite the article?

People will review it eventually. I'm not familiar with this methodology although I'm familiar with OO methods and agile quite a bit. I don't mean that I'm challenging this. To start with though I'm going to change the first sentence. Saying it's an "improvement to object oriented methodologies" is too general and too grandiose a statement, it may be better than OO for certain kinds of development but to just say it's and improvemnet, especially since it's hardly a common term in IT and hasn't supplanted things like RUP for most development, is claiming too much and not neutral I think. MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the improvement. 12 January 2014 Azuendorf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuendorf (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at the article a bit more I take issue with the comparison to "Object modelling techniques" I changed the first sentences to be less POV, to not say that story modelling is an improvement to OO but even as it stands now I don't agree with it. The defacto standard for OO modelling is the Rational Unified Process which absolutely does include use cases so the distinction in this article is wrong IMO. MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This Just Looks like Use Cases to me

Isn't this just another name for Use Case modelling? If so it should be merged with this article: Use-case analysis MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I commented on this on the discussion of the merge proposal. For completeness, I site the argument here again:

SDM and Use-case analysis are not the same and should not be mixed or merged. Use-case analysis is a pretty informal step in e.g. the Rational Unified Process RUP. SDM is a much more technical approach that targets object oriented models. SDM uses a different kind of scenarios that is much more detailed and a different kind of derivation step to come up with an object model. Actually, the SDM people hate use cases and they hate to be mixed with them. Azuendorf 5.03.2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuendorf (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this similar to CRC Cards?

I know the Class-responsibility-collaboration entry on WikiP is sparse, it does at least include SDM in see also.

The work on CRC cards was published in 1989 so had been around a little early and is a part of the eXtreme Programming canon. It is also considered part of Agile Modelling.

I made this anonymous because I can't be bothered to dig out which email account I used to submit stuff in the past. I thought it was important to point out that there is extremely similar practises elsewhere that haven't been referenced.

By the way, I consider it invidious that someone needs to change a word from UK to US spelling yet uses a Spanish word in both diagrams and the text. I know Saldo is a popular word in Europe, even being used colloquially in France, however balance is the same word, spelt the same in Australian, American and the original English.

Issues from February 2014

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (February 2014) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopaedic description of the subject. (February 2014)

Hm, you are right. It is a little bit like an essay. I thougt this is a feature not a bug. To help the reader to understand the term, I have the experience that an example helps most. This results in the epic style. Thus, I argue that the usual "encyclopaedic description" style is bad and that the epic style does a better job in explaining the term.

Well, you are again right, there are little inline references. This is partly caused by the epic style giving an example.

I will try to improve this. Let me think. Azuendorf 5.3.2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuendorf (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)