+1
On 1 July 2010 14:28, Dennis Djenfer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> <[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 > <[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 <[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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
