DBJ

When you think about it. Everything revolves around a “Product”. Business/Industry/Investors, all think in terms of Products. Not Software, Architectural or some other artifacts. After Business decided they know WHY do the need it, product owners and business analyst are iterating to define WHAT business wants. Just then it is feasible to deploy the consistent plan to the Technology people, to decide HOW will it be done. The better information they have the less time they will spend iterating to “understand the thing”. Better means detailed, articulated, with requirements managed and clarified. No ambiguities. ...

C++ DBJ Error Concept — Revisited Back in 2019 I wrote C++ DBJ Error Concept, at last, proposing VALSTAT — Value & Status — as an answer to a gap ISO C++ has never closed: there is no standard C++ concept for “how did this call actually go.” Seven years on, the standard still doesn’t have one. The idea might be worth restating. (Certainly std::expected seems not to be widely adopted. My own assertion.) ...

Someone described DBJ Taxonomy this way: “a taxonomy that maps to Zachman-style layers (Strategic/Conceptual → Logical → Physical → Implementations).” Sounds credible. Sadly, it isn’t true. That image is the simplified four-layer version quoted in the claim. It’s not what Zachman actually defined — his framework is a 5×6 matrix (Scope/Business/System/Technology/Component crossed with What/How/Where/Who/When/Why), not a single top-to-bottom stack. The linear “Strategic → Logical → Physical → Implementations” progression is a loose paraphrase, which is also why the mapping claim doesn’t hold up. ...