Re: Looking for a discussion about generic datamodels

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:40:37 +0200
Message-ID: <431839bd$0$11075$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

schreurs_roel wrote:

> Every now and then, I come across a IT-project that stores its data in
> a generic data model. Such data models basically consist of 4 tables:
> Entities, Relations, Attributes and Values. The Entities table contains
> a record for each table in the conceptual data model, Attributes a
> record for each column, etc.

Sounds like a lousy DBMS built on top of a database.

> Invariably, the choice for such a data model is defended by the
> argumentation that new conceptual tables and columns can be added
> without modification of the data model.

Yep, now they can/have to change their 'conceptual' model (I don't think conceptual is the appropriate term here) /without/ the tools of the underlying database.

> This all sounds very nice, but I always have the idea that this comes
> at a price that may well be higher then the benefits it offers.

What are the benefits (not assuming ignorance)?

A try:
Package vendors who only need to control a very limited subset of DBMS functionality can achieve some DBMS-brand independence this way. Received on Fri Sep 02 2005 - 06:40:37 CDT