Unfortunately we don't have common names for all those different kinds
of models that we're using in this industry, so it can be quite hard
sometimes to understand what kind of model someone is talking about. I'm
talking about a high level information model accompanied with a
definition and description of each object in the model. You may use an
ER-tool to create the model, and it's only the most important enterprise
information objects that goes into this model and only the most
important relations between these objects. The objects may have
attributes, but it's only the most relevant and important attributes
that are used in the model. However, it's not a conceptual model, it's
an information model.
// Dennis Djenfer
On 2010-06-28 22:56, Michael Poulin wrote:
Dennis,
if you mean a common (for the enterprise) data vocabulary (what is
what and how it relates to others), I am with you.
- Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Dennis Djenfer <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Tue, June 22, 2010 11:05:47 PM
*Subject:* Re: [service-orientated-architecture] About canonical data
model
I agree with that. Data models can be defined on many abstraction
levels, and when people are talking about using a common data model
they often mean very different things. I believe in using a common
enterprise data model as one of the cornerstones when integrating
systems or creating services, but I'm not talking about a detailed
data model, rather something like your MDM approach or even higher
abstraction levels. I've found this high level common enterprise data
model being very effective at creating a common understanding of
important concepts and information in an enterprise.
// Dennis Djenfer
Sounds like the
On 2010-06-22 22:04, Steve Jones wrote:
Not really as MDM isn't about the full model its about the core and
identifying duplicates and commonalities. So for "Person" for
instance it might only be 25 attributes that are used by MDM to do
that. The other 300+ attributes that exist around the enterprise
aren't included within the MDM model.
Steve
On 23 June 2010 01:37, Dennis Djenfer <d...@algonet. se
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Steve,
In your blog you write:
"The only sensible policy is to look at an "active" MDM strategy
and a brokerage approach to communication between systems ideally
based around a federated data strategy that leaves information
its its source systems but provides references between them."
Where does the data model for the active MDM strategy and
brokerage approach come from? Isn't that the same model as you
would use for buidling a canonical data model?
// Dennis Djenfer
On 2010-06-22 11:34, Steve Jones wrote:
Short answer... don't.
Longer answer http://service- architecture. blogspot.
com/search? q=SOA+canonical
<http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/search?q=SOA+canonical>
On 21 June 2010 13:26, <jorg...@uci. cu <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Hello all.
I have a question for the design of a canonical data model.
The issue is that I want to create a data services layer,
and for making the design of services that expose data,
first I want to create the canonical data model, which
allows me to properly design services, and I want to know if
this canonical data model should correspond to the data
model of the database, E / R model , or I just model the
information concepts that are handled in the database.
Jorge.
