Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] About canonical data model

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Djenfer
    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
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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 <dej@...>
      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 <dej@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, <jorgeio@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.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       




    • Steve Jones
      +1
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        +1


        On 1 July 2010 14:28, Dennis Djenfer <dej@...> 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 <dej@...>
        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 <dej@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, <jorgeio@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.

         

         

         

         

         

         

         





      • Michael Poulin
        And conceptual model is... - Michael ________________________________ From: Steve Jones To:
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 4, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          And conceptual model is...

          - Michael


          From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
          To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
          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 <dej@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 <dej@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 <dej@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, <jorgeio@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.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           






        • Steve Jones
          It should be the same thing but often I ve found that people s conceptual model goes way beyond the entity and reference level and right into the detail Steve
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            It should be the same thing but often I've found that people's conceptual model goes way beyond the entity and reference level and right into the detail

            Steve

            On 4 July 2010 23:40, Michael Poulin <m3poulin@...> wrote:
             

            And conceptual model is...

            - Michael


            From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>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 <dej@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 <dej@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 <dej@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, <jorgeio@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.

             

             

             

             

             

             

             







          • Dennis Djenfer
            Maybe I shouldn t have mentioned that there is a difference between an information model and a conceptual model, because the kind of conceptual model I m
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 5, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that there is a difference between an information model and a conceptual model, because the kind of conceptual model I'm referring to may not be the one that you think about :-)

              This is what I'm talking about:
              A conceptual model communicates the meaning of a concept and the characteristics that differentiate a concept from another.

              An information model communicates which information about a concept we are interested in for a specific environment.

              As an example we could use a lake. In a conceptual model a lake may have the mandatory attribute "deep", because that is a characteristics that can be used for distinguishing a lake from other concepts, but a lake doesn't need to have a name.

              In an information model (for a specific environment, e.g. an organization) we may not be interested in how deep a lake is, but the name of the lake is a mandatory attribute because we want to be able to distinguish a specific lake from another lake.

              Now, I'm not happy about calling the first model "a conceptual model" because that name is used in many other cicumstances and for other kinds of models. I just haven't met anyone who has been able to suggest a better name for that kind of model, at least not in English :-)


              // Dennis Djenfer


              On 2010-07-04 15:40, Michael Poulin wrote:
              And conceptual model is...

              - Michael


              From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
              To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
              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 <dej@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 <dej@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 <dej@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, <jorgeio@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.

               

               

               

               

               

               

               






            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.