is “Logical effects architecture” logical?

We’ve been kicking around different names for OSS for some time now.

The last time I commited on paper I came up with the idea:

Logical Breach Modelling

Breaching. Looks exciting, doesn’t it?

The idea being that in the same way that the modelling finds gaps for committing research into, or vulnerabilities for focusing damage on, breaches are all about breaking something intransigent.

However, I’ve been pondering today how closely aligned OSS – I mean Logical Breach Modelling – is to UML. And if we are to align with it better we should probably use a name that is far less exciting.

How about “Logical effects architecture”?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply