Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- technological_spaces_-_an_initial_appraisal [2014/02/04 14:11] – yann
+++ technological_spaces_-_an_initial_appraisal [2025/01/15 21:40] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== Kurtev, I.; Bézivin, J. & Aksit, M. Guerraoui, R.; Loyall, J. & Schmidt, D. (Eds.) Technological Spaces: An Initial Appraisal Proceedings of the $4th$ International Symposium on Distributed Objects and Applications, Spriner-Verlag, 2002 ======
+====== Kurtev, I.; Bézivin, J. & Aksit, M. Guerraoui, R.; Loyall, J. & Schmidt, D. (Eds.) Technological Spaces: An Initial Appraisal Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Distributed Objects and Applications, Spriner-Verlag, 2002 ======
 ===== Abstract =====
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 // Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, 2014/02/04 //
+A very intriguing paper, at the frontier between techologies, science, and education. The idea of a "technological space" is that of a "working context witg a set if associated concepts, body of knowledge, tools, required skills, and possibilities". The paper gives several examples of such spaces, including (in Figure 2) MDA, XML, and AS. It also shows a comparison of these spaces based on seven characteristics. The objectives of defining and studying technological spaces is to give advice to developers when choosing the technologies encompassed by these spaces as well as making explicit the different trade-offs so that developers are not captive of their choices. They include also sharing best practices across spaces. The paper argues that research should focus on the frontiers among spaces as much as it focused on the content of each space.
+The only limitations of this paper is that it does not clearly list all possible characteristics of the technological spaces: it provides seven of them without explaining where these characteristics come from. Also, it does not emphasise the importance of the bridges across spaces. Finally, it does not provide much "actionable" results although it is a very good start. I hope that in the near future, the authors will propose some in-depth study of some (few) spaces, making explicit their bridges and their pros/cons. They already mentioned the [[http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2001/jan01/01-25javaupgradepr.aspx|JUMP framework]] as one possible such bridge between the Java and the .NET spaces.