In the realm of OO methodologies there are two major schools of thought. Both schools claim to define mechanisms whereby software applications can be created that are reusable, maintainable, and robust. Moreover, both schools claim to use abstraction as a key mechanism for achieving these benefits. At issue is whether or not these two schools are fundamentally different, or just variations on an object-oriented theme. Shlaer and Mellor have dubbed one of these schools ''Translational''. In the translational approach, two models are created. One is an abstract model of the application domain which is devoid of any design dependencies. The other model is an abstract model of the design which is devoid of any application dependencies. These two models are composed automatically to yield the code for the system. The other school - supported by Booch, Rumbaugh, Jacobson, and Martin - views the architecture of a system from several different perspectives of abstraction, e.g. logical, physical. These abstractions typically form a layer; abstractions in the logical sense manifest themselves as individual classes as well as collaborations of classes. There may be one layered model, at different layers of abstraction, or, especially given the Objectory view point, there may be multiple models, with an analysis model that's nearly independent from the design model. The panel will explore: Is there a seamless transition between analysis and design? Should there be a single model or should there be two - one for the analysis and one for the design? If there are two models, how are they ''bridged''? What, if any, are the differences in process between the two schools? How does architecture manifest itself? Is there, in fact, a real difference between the two schools of thought? As a result of this exploration, we hope to answer the question: Is translation a myth or is it a reality?
