My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07134
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07134
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:25:53 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:06:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8283.200
Description
Colorado River Decision Support System - CRDSS
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1993
Author
Dames and Moore
Title
Feasibility Study Report for a Colorado River Decision Support System
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
188
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />lJIl3G'5? <br /> <br />Unlike Data Centered architectures, Dedicated DSS's have no generalized <br />facilities for extending the system. Instead they are systems "made-to- <br />measure" for a particular case. Figure 8, therefore, shows that various <br />applications require different but complete systems. Thus. for each application <br />a specialized set of models is integrated and combin~ with a special set of <br />data, This enables the applications to be performed very rapidly and. because <br />of the made-to-measure character of these systems. they can be esthetically <br />pleasing, Dedicated DSS's are expensive to extend and are characterized by <br />poor modularity. <br /> <br />Based on the results of the analys,is presented above we recommend the Data <br />Centered architecture over the Dedicated DSS architecture, Data Centered <br />architectures score higher on all evaluation criteria except performance, Given <br />imponance of extensibility and modularity of implementation, we consider the <br />Data Centered approach the better choice. <br /> <br />Note. however. that this evaluation is based on functionality only, After <br />evaluating both Access and User Interfaces we will come back to this result <br />and inspect some of the relationships between functional architecture and these <br />other aspects of the architecture. <br /> <br />Next, three architectures for accessing CRDSS were studied: centralized <br />access, distributed access and stand alone systems (Figure 9), <br /> <br />Table 5 contains descriptions of all three of these access architectures, From <br />this table it can be concluded that the "stand alone" alternative, because of <br />logistic reasons. is not very attractive, The other two alternatives, "centralized" <br />and "distributed" have cenaln advantages and disadvantages, However, none <br />of these architectures seems really unsuitable, <br /> <br />Dedicated Decision <br />Support Systems <br /> <br />Alternative <br />Architectures <br />Functions <br /> <br />Access <br />Architectures <br /> <br />DAMES& M OORE/CA DSWES-38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.