Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

JOG wrote:
> erk wrote:
> > Thanks, I will look at the above. I thought the terminology was fairly
> > ill-defined. Is it in the same state as O-O, where there are various
> > theories but nothing cohesive or consistently applied?
>
> Yes you've hit the nail on the head. The definitions are accepted, but
> are extremely wooly and lack formality.

Ugh. Accepted-but-ill-defined is a poor foundation for much discussion, then. Sounds like we're better off trying our own definitions, and I think the discussion rests on a basic dictionary definition of "structure."

• erk