--- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 John. > > Pretty much anything completely canonical is doomed to failure.
Have you been involved in anything that tried a "completely canonical" approach? I think there is value in at least pursuing a canonical definition (something that is implementation/application independent) to some level. Thinking about processes and messages in this manner can lead to good things. I agree that going all out, however, is ill-advised. > I would say that some of the concepts in Microsoft Motion could be > described as canonical in that they are consistent across multiple > businesses within a given sector, and SAP works because an Invoice > is an Invoice and general ledger is general ledger, but trying to > formalise these all the way across businesses is not smart and in > paticular not if you try and make implementation irrelevant. Is adopting the model of one your apps as the canonical model a good thing to do? Perhaps. I suppose it depends on the model and the pervasiveness of the application, both within and outside the enterprise. I imagine too that the model of the major application (R/3 or whatever) within an org is usually the default canonical model. -Rob
