Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "dawn" Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: database systems: an environment of roles & players Date: 22 Apr 2005 08:10:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 137 Message-ID: <1114182630.468223.249210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1113600382.500209.124310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0R_7e.12658$5F3.10954@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <4260d199$0$95207$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <1113662390.905906.209840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.120.93.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1114182635 26411 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2005 15:10:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.120.93.7; posting-account=fLxfag0AAADzmFPc_IBdM-stGY4WCEYa Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:30605 mountain man wrote: > "dawn" wrote in message > news:1113662390.905906.209840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > mountain man wrote: > >> "mAsterdam" wrote in message > >> news:4260d199$0$95207$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > >> > mountain man wrote: > >> >> "dawn" wrote > >> >>>mountain man wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>>In the following tabulation we list a number of different > >> >>>>roles and players that would normally be associated with > >> >>>>the database systems environment at any organisation. > >> >>> > >> >>>Your list doesn't look like something "associated with the > > database > >> >>>systems environment at any organisation" but only with those > >> >>>organizations employing a relational model -- is that correct? > >> >> > >> >> No, it was supposed to be for any organisation over > >> >> a certain size, at which time they will all have invested > >> >> in some DBMS of some form. It need not be related > >> >> to the RM. > >> > [snip] > >> >>>>================================== > >> >>>> DATABASE SYSTEMS ROLE-TYPES > >> >>>>================================== > >> >>>> > >> >>>>--------------- Internal to the organisation: > >> >>>>I01 - business owner(s) > >> >>>>I02 - business executives and managers > >> >>>>I03 - general organisation work-groups/end-users > >> >>>>I04 - DBA > >> >>> > >> >>>This role, as typically defined in an organization supporting > >> >>>SQL-DBMS's does not exist at companies not supporting SQL-DBMS's. > >> >>> > >> >>>I would add a "data modeling" role, however, which seems to be > > required > >> >>>independent of implementation tools. > >> > > >> > The 'Data administrator' specializes in meaning, consistency, > > language > >> > used in datamodels. I have seen DA's in SQL and non SQL shops. I > > have also > >> > seen sites who should need a DA but lacked the cooperative culture > > needed > >> > to sustain the work. > >> > >> > >> Yes, one expects that this role has the greatest chance > >> of exhibiting understanding of data modelling. However > >> you never know - because often other parties (roles) > >> itemised above also have these skills. > > > > Since you are not indicating "positions" but "roles" it makes sense to > > me to indicate that there is a role for data modeling, another for data > > administration, and another for database administration. > > > Roles (and the skill sets associated with them) > probably change slightly from country to > country, and decade to decade ;-) > > > >> >>>>I05 - IT manager > >> >>>>I06 - internal programmers > >> >>>>I07 - specialised development teams > >> >>>>I08 - Operations & help desk personnel > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>--------------- External to the organisation: > >> > > >> > Why the Internal/External split? > >> > >> > >> Usually the contractual responsibilities are different > >> between internal and external roles. > > > > For each of these roles, an individual playing that role might actually > > work for the company with the data being addressed or be contracted for > > either directly, through a contracting firm, or even through an > > outsourcing firm. > > Of course. > > > I agree that the Internal/External designation being > > applied to a role isn't helpful. If a particular position is assigned > > a role, it could also be assigned an employment classification. > > Knowledge of the entire scope of role-types associated with the > management of a database system - and their function - is useful, > and the internal/external designation is helpful in managing the > organisation. Certainly. I'm just suggesting these be separate attributes -- don't mix them together in a single tag like this. > > >> Also, it enables > >> a perspective to be placed on the self-independence > >> of an organisation on IT resources, and/or in the > >> complimentary sense, whether that organisation > >> relies heavily on outsourced skills. > > > > It would likely help to get more information on how you intend to use > > these classifications. What is the purpose of this information? > > > It is just a list of roles. Often people assume the perspective of one > (or more) of these roles when arguing about the database system > environment in general - or certain theory surrounding databases. > > It is helpful to identify when this happens, and important > to understand how all these different perspectives may be > reconciled from a global perspective. Sounds good. I do something similar when I talk about how small to mid-size companies roll many of these roles into single individuals who will necessarily do a better job on some of these roles than others. Cheers! --dawn > > Pete Brown > Falls Creek > Oz > www.mountainman.com.au