Re: Another view on analysis and ER
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:09:20 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 6, 6:18 pm, rp..._at_pcwin518.campus.tue.nl (rpost) wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> >Ok so one might summarize the following steps:
> >1) initial analysis of business processes and important concepts.
> >2) Formulation of an initial conceptual model (that is necessarily
> >slanted to a certain viewpoint of the UoD).
> >3) Translation into a nicely normalized logical model, that's query
> >4) On demand, extract data back out from the neutral logical model,
> >shaping it either the original conceptual view, or other conceptual
> >views as needs arise from new applications.
> >Great. This all makes perfect sense, and is very clear to boot. A
> >simple process for creating a thorough yet flexible system. It seems
> >obvious even, right?
> >So why on earth would /anyone/ want to drop step 3? I'm at a loss as
> >to why certain cdt'ers (who are clearly intelligent people) seem to be
> >advocating this. An absolute loss I tell you.
> Being new here, I have no idea whom you're referring to.
> You'll never see *me* omit step 3, But I don't buy your "neutral".
As far as I understand OODBMS, they do drop that step 3, because they
directly translate a single conceptual model into an identical logical
one. In general, I think much of our conversation has probably crossed
in the mist anyhow Reinier. I'm thinking of it as a 'lack of beer'
issue, in that if we were discussing it at the pub, instead of on
usenet, there probably wouldn't be any confusion ;)
But welcome to cdt. It can get rawkus in here, but there are only a
couple of people in here selling stuff, instead of giving genuine
Received on Sat Dec 08 2007 - 21:09:20 CET
But welcome to cdt. It can get rawkus in here, but there are only a couple of people in here selling stuff, instead of giving genuine feedback. J. Received on Sat Dec 08 2007 - 21:09:20 CET