And conceptual model is...

- Michael



________________________________
From: Steve Jones <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 6:45:55 AM
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] About canonical data model

  
+1



On 1 July 2010 14:28, Dennis Djenfer <d...@algonet. se> 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 <d...@algonet. se>
>>To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com
>>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> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 21 June 2010 13:26, <jorg...@uci. cu> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>
>>

 


      

Reply via email to