What do you see in the picture? A piece of cardboard? Some junk? No! — It’s a model!

Thread on models and bounded contexts 1/9

#DDDesign #BoundedContext

It’s a model of the Siemens KG86NAI31L fridge. The cardboard doesn’t look anything like the fridge? — That’s true but not important. A model is not a copy of a real-world entity but a construct supposed to solve a problem. 2/9
Hence, the correct question to ask is: what problem does this model solve? In our apartment, we have a weird entry to the kitchen. The cardboard’s is in the size of the fridge’s width and depth, and the problem it solves is checking whether it can make it through the door. 3/9
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, but some are useful. This model is wrong in many different ways. Nevertheless, it is useful. It helped us to decide whether to buy the fridge or look for a smaller one. 4/9
Building an exact, 3d cardboard copy of the fridge would definitely be a fun project! But would it make the solution any better or more precise? No. If the 2d model fits, a 3d model will fit as well. 5/9
But what about the fridge’s height? What if the base fits, but it’s too tall for that door? Would that justify building a 3d cardboard fridge? — Nope. A simple tape measure does the job. What is a tape measure in this case? — Another simple model. 6/9
So we have two models of the same fridge to check whether it can make it through our weird kitchen door. That piece of cardboard and a tape measure reflect the DDD’s approach to modeling business domains. 7/9
A domain model should omit the extraneous information irrelevant to its task. Also, no need to design a complex jack-of-all-trades model if multiple, much simpler models can effectively solve each problem individually. 8/9
Finally, a model is only valid for the specific problem it is supposed to solve: its bounded context. 9/9

More from Design

I've been thinking about the "reframing of powerlessness as righteousness" with regards to design education, and I want to jot down some loose thoughts...


Around 2012, while on summer break from what I felt was a lackluster school year, I was kind of at a breaking point. A prominent designer was peddling this self-help program, a $6000 weeklong workshop that centered around dinner with him and his influential friends.

His response to a fan who was deeply inspired by him and wanted to be a better designer, who asked "what if I can't afford the $6000?" was "You simply don't *want* to afford it." It's not a priority for you. I remember seeing it on Facebook and getting up from my chair.

It was gross, and it felt like the latest incident in what seemed like a long generational road of manipulating impressionable young people into thinking that the only thing stopping them from having the lives of these visible figures was passion

It felt wrong. Absolutely wrong. I thought about my best friend from high school. Someone just as—if not more—talented than me in art. Both of us dreamed of going to the same art school. Only one of us did. His familial socioeconomics as his undocumented status made it impossible

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party