Although reasonable people can differ on some of the finer points, this response hits the nail on the head and draws out a lot of the contentious issues ... issues that strangely draw the ire and resistance of many for some strange reason.

case in point: the 'large environment metadata' sample you provided is almost (if not entirely) optimal for the type of concise, accessible specification one would hope to see in a 'professional' environment. (plain, forward-looking, demonstrates competence, provides useful audit trail)

Yet, I would bet money that few if *none* of you in the larger environments (I'm not naming names here) have *ever* inherited a project that was completely and coherently covered in such a straightforward manner. This is especially so for projects consisting of largish teams with oversight from multiple (departments/camps/competencies); *specifically* the context where this sort of approach is most cost-effective and beneficial.

Someone once said, in technology, that the best approach is (usually) (always) the one that never sees the light of day.