Certainly calling the relational model the logical model makes both
practical and theoretical sense; and calling the ER-level the conceptual
model makes sense too, although I personally prefer requirements model or
analysis model as I think it is clearer and more accurate depending on
whether the model simply records requirements or represents some kind of
business analysis. However, I find physical model to be vague and
misleading. Do you mean implementation model, or do you mean the actual
implementation syntax, or? In what sense is the physical model physical?
"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:reednQMCbKLdkund4p2dnA_at_comcast.com...
> Just a terminology question, I can point it out without making a mountain
> out of a mole hill.
>
> I've always seen the "ER" model listed as the "conceptual model" rather
> than the "logical model".
>
> In this framework, you first turn the ER conceptual model into a
relational
> logical model, and then turn the logical model into a physical model.
>
> It's an extra step, but I think it buys you something.
>
> Again, I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The rows by
any
> other name would smell as sweet.
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 07 2004 - 10:51:40 CDT
