It's a good reminder to me that it's easy to take a term for granted or get stuck in a rut concept-wise, when one is hears the same terms (in this case "hierarchy") over and over.
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > Having given it more thought I decided that a hierarchy doesn't have to be > a tree. A tree is a diagram or graph that branches from a single stem > without forming loops or polygons. > > A hierarchy could have "loops" or "polygons." In other words, there could > be more than one way to get between layers in the hierarchy. Think of the > dotted lines we so often see on org charts. > > When you look at examples of Cisco's hierarchical design, in most cases > they aren't actually trees. There are, of course, redundant ways to get > between layers. > > Hierarchy just implies layers and that each layer has a particular job and > ranking. I don't think it has a mathematical meaning. In fact (and Howard > will like this because it goes with his 7 deadly sins ;-) most of the > meanings for hierarchy have to do with the church: > > 1 a division of angels > 2 a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate > to the one above it; especially : the bishops of a province or nation b : > church government by a hierarchy > > So, it was an off-the-wall comment that made sense when in a hurry and not > when given some thought. > > (Although a lot of systems analysis techniques do assume that hierarchy > means tree!??) Did anyone every use IBM's HIPO method: Hierarchy, Input, > Process, Output. It worked extremely well. I don't think it would let you > use a hierarchy that wasn't also a tree, although I can't remember for sure. > > Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23990&t=23497 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
