Re: database design method

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" <rayd_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<rk-dnUl4DJrfmSugXTWcpg_at_comcast.com>...
> "David Cressey" <david_at_dcressey.com> wrote in message
> news:Z_bs9.196$0I3.17251_at_petpeeve.ziplink.net...
>
> >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