Re: Peter Chen and Charles Bachman
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 04:12:41 GMT
Message-ID: <Hx9yD3.M4J_at_news.boeing.com>
"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ttGdnR_8Ad39AgTdRVn-sA_at_comcast.com...
>
> "D Guntermann" <guntermann_at_hotmail.com> wrote
> > There is truth in that statement, but I would submit that logical data
> > elements and structures, particularly in the relational model, can be
tied
> > back to a reconciliation and harmonization of one or more conceptual
> models
> > (note: plural). Semantics inherently reflect one's view of the world
and
> > that one view doesn't necessarily correspond to another's view of the
> world.
> > In some cases, we can accept a single view of the world, but with
> enterprise
> > data management mechanisms, we must at least have the capability to
> > accomodate all views of the world (different conceptual models) that are
> > pertinent.
>
> Very good point. But reconciling two conceptual models that are
independent
> of each other is much harder, IMO, than reformatting data to work with a
> different tool. In other words, it's the unified concpetual model that
has
> to be acheived if you are going to integrate systems.
>
>
Well, neither approach is necessarily easy. I would actually counter with
my own opinion that it is the formal unified logical definition of data
(domains) and sets of mappings between logical definitions that is the
sufficient condition for integration. Concepts are far from logically
cohesive or consistent across subject areas, domains, and universes of
discourse.
I get the sense that you might be deeply involved with data warehousing and ETL processes. In your experience, have you had successes enforcing and standardizing a unified grand conceptual model?
>
Regards,
- Dan