[460] in Project_DB
Re: A Proposal For Moving Forward on Project DB (3/31)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Cattey)
Mon Apr 5 18:45:33 1999
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 18:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
To: Mike Barker <mbarker@MIT.EDU>, Tim McGovern <tjm@MIT.EDU>
Cc: project-db@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v03130303b3296a6cfc5a@[18.152.1.21]>
Tim:
I was going to forward a suggestion to Mike about how to answer your
request, but he's gone for two weeks. Ultimately, he's the project
leader, and may be able to give a better answer than this, but I wanted
to provide to you something.
First off, thanks for the idea.
I can see how there might very well be two projects, that are, from the
standpoint of meeting a business need, the same project, but from the
standpoint of Process, are very different projects indeed.
For example, Electronic Reserves: If it were to become a Delivery
project, it would have very different work and people than the current
Discovery project. It's the same project from one viewpoint, and 2
different projects from another viewpoint.
Chatting informally with Miki about this, we concluded that the change
to the schema to allow one project "NAME" to refer to two whole projects
in the database with different "PROCESS" fields as the differentiator
would be a non-trivial amount of effort.
Miki suggests the admittedly kludgy approach of assigning long names to
projects, for example Electronic Reserves Discovery and Electronic
Reserves Delivery.
When Mike comes back he will give you the official answer, but I think
the answer to your question is, "Yes it would be useful functionality,
but the cost of implementing it is beyond the scope planned for the
effort this time around. So we should remember to put into the hopper
with the stuff considered for the larger scope follow-on Discovery
project."
-wdc
