6 ms·

Not attacking this association, but just wanted to say I really dislike the term "body of knowledge". Areas of knowledge are certainly some kind of 'body', but

by veltas 6y ago

Not attacking this association, but just wanted to say I really dislike the term "body of knowledge". Areas of knowledge are certainly some kind of 'body', but the term always sounds to me like something you just keep adding more stuff onto the outside as you go, like a big snowball of ideas. And knowledge can become defunct, irrelevant, or disproven over time. And there's something about the way it tries to sound almost authoritative, without claiming to be scientific.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago
This sounds like a fair description of how software engineering and computer science has progressed over the years so maybe it's a fair term ;)
- sas224dbm 6y ago
  Maybe. I've worked in the defense industry in and around software as a developer, designer etc for around 30 years. There's some good detail in there, but i think it's a little dated. Try looking for any material on REST in there. If it got refreshed somewhat i'd have it on my virtual bookshelf for sure.
TomOwens 6y ago
I think this is why the PDF is actually the "Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge". It's not a representation of the complete body of knowledge itself, but extracting key concepts and terms and provides pointers to things that are most relevant. If things are irrelevant or disproven over time, the guide to the body of knowledge would remove those terms, concepts, or references and point to something else.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  Unfortunately, where it does present "key concepts and terms", that presentation is often flawed. I think it would be more useful as a guide to the field of software engineering if that's the only thing it tried to be, setting out a well-considered structure but then referring to other reliable sources for details. It could be a lot shorter and more accessible, and it wouldn't keep saying things that are misleading or incorrect.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  It actually apes the Project Management Institute's terminology exactly. The PMBOK guide and the PMBOK are the same thing (as far as I know). This takes exactly the same approach. The guide is the entire book, it just has a funny name as if there was another larger book that this is a guide to. There isn't. https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok
- Cullinet 6y ago
  I'm thinking of a distinction between eg body of knowledge to mean the arrangement of muscle, skeleton and organs, versus a corpus of knowledge that you presume to be a representative collection of body parts making up a adequate whole.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
> knowledge can become defunct, irrelevant, or disproven over time. True, but at the same time, old software is still around; if you can look up the terms and practices from 'back when' using an overview like this, or at the very least have enough broad knowledge to recognize what it is, you're already ahead. I've only skimmed it (the PDF is linked elsewhere), but it looks like just the resource for a professor of software engineering and -design to have and become acquainted with - know a little about a lot of things, then go from there.
ubermonkey 6y ago
I suspect the inspiration for the title is the very well regarded "Project Management Body of Knowledge" document maintained/published by the PMI. People in the industry refer to the PMBOK ("Pimbock") pretty frequently. There are lots of people in big-time project management that disdain aspects of the PMI (including and especially the PMP certification, which is often re-named as "pretty much pointless"), but the PMBOK is a valuable document -- ESPECIALLY for people new to the field. We could do worse, in software, than to emulate that particular success.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  The PMBOK is a very good source for your vocabulary searches. But, especially for people new to the field, it's an incredibly harmful document. And the harm is entirely caused by the "it misleadingly looks authoritative while it's not and really shouldn't be" issue the GP stated.
  - ubermonkey 6y ago
    I'm going to guess you haven't spent much time in the PM world if you think the PMBOK is harmful to new people instead of educational.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      If nothing else, the PMBOK is valuable for PMs purely as a reference to the poisonous bullshit that is contained within it? Somewhat like the value of knowing about flat earth hypotheses and believers.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      Oh, yes, I've spent enough time in the PM world to get tired of people justifying their procedures by claiming the PMBOK says it's the correct set of them (the PMBOK explicitly says it's not prescriptive, but it misleads people new people into thinking it is).
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Got an example where PMBOK led someone astray?
kper 6y ago
I think it comes from the latin word 'corpus', which also means body. This wording came from the romans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis
- veltas 6y ago
  That actually makes me feel better, and is quite interesting, thank you.
twangist 6y ago
The title should also drop the "the", which makes you brace for a document by a non-native speaker.

by veltas 6y ago

benjaminjosephw 6y ago

This sounds like a fair description of how software engineering and computer science has progressed over the years so maybe it's a fair term ;)

sas224dbm 6y ago
Maybe. I've worked in the defense industry in and around software as a developer, designer etc for around 30 years. There's some good detail in there, but i think it's a little dated. Try looking for any material on REST in there. If it got refreshed somewhat i'd have it on my virtual bookshelf for sure.

TomOwens 6y ago

I think this is why the PDF is actually the "Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge". It's not a representation of the complete body of knowledge itself, but extracting key concepts and terms and provides pointers to things that are most relevant. If things are irrelevant or disproven over time, the guide to the body of knowledge would remove those terms, concepts, or references and point to something else.

Silhouette 6y ago
Unfortunately, where it does present "key concepts and terms", that presentation is often flawed. I think it would be more useful as a guide to the field of software engineering if that's the only thing it tried to be, setting out a well-considered structure but then referring to other reliable sources for details. It could be a lot shorter and more accessible, and it wouldn't keep saying things that are misleading or incorrect.
LegitShady 6y ago
It actually apes the Project Management Institute's terminology exactly. The PMBOK guide and the PMBOK are the same thing (as far as I know). This takes exactly the same approach. The guide is the entire book, it just has a funny name as if there was another larger book that this is a guide to. There isn't. https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok
Cullinet 6y ago
I'm thinking of a distinction between eg body of knowledge to mean the arrangement of muscle, skeleton and organs, versus a corpus of knowledge that you presume to be a representative collection of body parts making up a adequate whole.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

> knowledge can become defunct, irrelevant, or disproven over time. True, but at the same time, old software is still around; if you can look up the terms and practices from 'back when' using an overview like this, or at the very least have enough broad knowledge to recognize what it is, you're already ahead. I've only skimmed it (the PDF is linked elsewhere), but it looks like just the resource for a professor of software engineering and -design to have and become acquainted with - know a little about a lot of things, then go from there.

ubermonkey 6y ago

I suspect the inspiration for the title is the very well regarded "Project Management Body of Knowledge" document maintained/published by the PMI. People in the industry refer to the PMBOK ("Pimbock") pretty frequently. There are lots of people in big-time project management that disdain aspects of the PMI (including and especially the PMP certification, which is often re-named as "pretty much pointless"), but the PMBOK is a valuable document -- ESPECIALLY for people new to the field. We could do worse, in software, than to emulate that particular success.

marcosdumay 6y ago
The PMBOK is a very good source for your vocabulary searches. But, especially for people new to the field, it's an incredibly harmful document. And the harm is entirely caused by the "it misleadingly looks authoritative while it's not and really shouldn't be" issue the GP stated.
- ubermonkey 6y ago
  I'm going to guess you haven't spent much time in the PM world if you think the PMBOK is harmful to new people instead of educational.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    If nothing else, the PMBOK is valuable for PMs purely as a reference to the poisonous bullshit that is contained within it? Somewhat like the value of knowing about flat earth hypotheses and believers.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    Oh, yes, I've spent enough time in the PM world to get tired of people justifying their procedures by claiming the PMBOK says it's the correct set of them (the PMBOK explicitly says it's not prescriptive, but it misleads people new people into thinking it is).
- r00fus 6y ago
  Got an example where PMBOK led someone astray?

kper 6y ago

I think it comes from the latin word 'corpus', which also means body. This wording came from the romans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis

veltas 6y ago
That actually makes me feel better, and is quite interesting, thank you.

twangist 6y ago

The title should also drop the "the", which makes you brace for a document by a non-native speaker.