Re: database design method

From: TX-DBA <>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 10:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <>

MY 2 cents.

If your audience are developers, they see a CM and start to think about tables and design instead of concentrating on business rules and discovering entities/things. You have to get them to think about the "What" and not the "How".

The CM, IMO, is really intended for non-developers such as clients and analyst. BUT.......If you really don't have a lot of business rules and its a simple application, such as a survey datbase with two or three tables, I guess you could just jump to the logical model. With large-enterprise database development however, the CM is a must!

"Ray DiMarcello" <> wrote in message news:<>...
> "David Cressey" <> wrote in message
> news:Z_bs9.196$
> >Well, one difference is how tied to a relational
> > implementation you are. A relational model is somewhat more bound to a
> > relational physical implementation than an ER model is.
> Why is this exactly? Maybe you are referring to how most (well a lot
> anyway) people don't really build a logical model first even though they
> might say they are. They just jump right in to building a schema with a
> target RDBMS in mind. If you don't do that and just build a data model with
> whatever tool you want, or just a sheet of paper and a pencil, then I submit
> that you are not bound to a physical implementation at all.
> RD
Received on Thu Oct 24 2002 - 19:58:43 CEST

Original text of this message