[412] in Project_DB
Re: Philosophical Ponderings of PDB Schema
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert V. Ferrara)
Thu Dec 31 16:23:07 1998
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:23:01 -0500
To: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>, project-db@MIT.EDU
From: "Robert V. Ferrara" <rferrara@MIT.EDU>
Bill, truly excellent summary and proposal. Here's my reflections on what
you've written.
I agree completely on
-- Principles we seem to agree on as of now
-- the suggested Data Elements I propose we prune and CHOPPED--
>I think I would like to keep tasks, and try and find the resources to
>write an improved interface for creating and editing them.
>-- Documents: Why we should go with ONE document only -- Sounds OK.
****I could go along with this but please look at Rocklyn's SAPWeb project
before we decide. Also, it is easy to add a new type.
I really like the direction on -- Status/Process/Practice/Phase/Committment
-- but want to add a few ****suggestions*** set off by asterisks.
There may be two types of sponsor
****Business/Academic Sponsor(s)******
and
****Operational Sponsor*******
This latter is the sponsor where the work is "getting done".
With the above scheme, it scales readily to non-IS work.
>Cut back the STATUS field to the set Tim recommended:
> Planned, Active, On Hold, Completed or Terminated
***I'd like to add a "ready" for the state in which integration, discovery,
or delivery work is completed but turnover has not yet occurred. I realize
this is a subset of "active", but an important one in practice.
>The search page should be able to search by:
> Sponsor -- you pick one from a supplied list.
> default to ANY
*** As long as each Process and Practice Director can pull up a
"traditional" list (e.g. Delivery projects), this should work fine. In
other words, I'd be happy if there were a valid HTML search string that
would reside under the "Delivery" or "Academic" links on the Project Home
Page. This may need some refining.
Great job, Bill
