Re: what data models cant do

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:27:37 -0400, Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote:

>This raises for me the entire question of data modelling and Kens First Law,
>"People Understand Tables Just Fine". Because people understand tables
>just fine, you do not need another layer of abstraction between people and
>tables.

I am afraid that you will have to put another mark in in your calendar :)

Non IT people understand relations very well too. IMO business people tend to understand relations and set theory better than IT people.

For the sake of curiosity, in Spain "relation" is the common term for "table" for the non IT people. Business people tend to talk about relations among them and not about tables.

Most business people have a decent grasp on set theory and predicate logic and they learn to understand declarative integrity constraints and derivation rules very fast. Specially if you use a decent notation like D&D's one.

> "Models" such as those in the article are only useful because a
>picture is worth a thousand words.

"Models" such as those in the article are diagrams. They are useful to get a high level undetailed view, but they have little expressive power. They are mere sketches of the "real" data model.

Although I personally find ER diagrams a lot easier to interpret than Barker's diagrams.   

Regards Received on Tue May 17 2005 - 13:56:06 CEST