Re: what data models cant do

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:13:58 -0400
Message-Id: <5eepl2-rgm.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net>

mountain man wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote in message
> news:lqjml2-ks4.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...

>> mountain man wrote:
>>> "Kenneth Downs" <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote elsewhere:

>
>
> ...[trim]...
>

>> I found the article a good read, though as Alfredo says it may be only
>> that
>> flavor of model that is lacking.

>
>
> He may have a point, after reading the author's comparison of
> various models, it is clear that the author favor's Barker diagrams
> over all other techniques of data modelling (as at 1999).
> [PDF: 221K]
> http://www.essentialstrategies.com/documents/comparison.pdf
>
>
>

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

>
>
> I think I am beginning to see that the method of modelling
> data directly from the tables has merit. Are you aware of
> any shortcomings in this approach?
>

Only political ones. For instance, at SDS we do all real work by working out table designs, and most of it either on yellow pads or whiteboards (no GUI!). But when it comes time to show customers you have to have the Pretty Pictures, you don't show them a picture of the whiteboard.

I don't consider this a shortcoming so much as a cost of doing business. But I can pay for it from the money not spent on less productive design methods.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth@(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)

Received on Tue May 17 2005 - 10:13:58 CDT