technological_spaces_-_an_initial_appraisal
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Previous revision | |||
| — | 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, | ||
| + | ===== Abstract ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this paper, we propose a high level view of technological spaces (TS) and relations among these spaces. A technological space is a working context with a set of associated concepts, body of knowledge, tools, required skills, and possibilities. It is often associated to a given user community with shared know-how, educational support, common literature and even workshop and conference regular meetings. Although it is difficult to give a precise definition, some TSs can be easily identified, e.g. the XML TS, the DBMS TS, the abstract syntax TS, the meta-model (OMG/MDA) TS, etc. The purpose of our work is not to define an abstract theory of technological spaces, but to figure out how to work more efficiently by using the best possibilities of each technology. To do so, we need a basic understanding of the similarities and differences between various TSs, and also of the possible operational bridges that will allow transferring the results obtained in one TS to other TS. We hope that the presented industrial vision may help us putting forward the idea that there could be more cooperation than competition among alternative technologies. Furthermore, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Comments ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | // Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, | ||
| + | |||
| + | A very intriguing paper, at the frontier between techologies, | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 " | ||
