Paul wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>
>>> Ultimately there's no right or wrong way to model business data
>>
>>
>> There may well be more than one "right" one but there are certainly
>> a large number of models that are dead wrong. Anyone that has been
>> in this business for awhile has seen that a very many times.
>
>
> Well it depends what you mean by "wrong" I guess :)
>
> I could store my business data and rules written in longhand in a large
> notebook in chronological order of when I thought of it.
>
> That's not wrong in the sense that it would give me false information,
> it's just not very useful for querying and reporting.
>
> You could have business rules enforced in the client applications rather
> than centrally in the DBMS.
>
> That's not wrong in the sense that they won't be enforced, it's just a
> logistical nightmare making sure all the client apps are synchronised.
>
> If, however, I stored all my business rules as the number "7", that
> would be absolutely wrong, because I can't distinguish between them.
>
> So when people slag off XML or multi-valued databases, they aren't
> saying they are Wrong in some absolute sense, just that the practical
> ramifications of such a model can be less than desirable in some ways.
>
> Paul.
For the sake of having an argument we could continue this ad infinitum.
But in the end the simple fact is that bad modeling increases the cost
of business and can, in some cases, lead to bankruptcy as has been
proven multiple times. You and your longhand may allow you to succeed
in Botswana (no offense intended to those living there) but it will
put you in Chapter 7 in the US in short order. Wrong is wrong. And the
history books are fool of examples (misspelling intentional).
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Received on Wed Feb 02 2005 - 11:15:08 CST
