Search Results

Search found 663 results on 27 pages for 'modeling'.

Page 1/27 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What's the real benefit of meta-modeling?

    - by Jakob
    After reading several texts about meta-modeling I still do not really get the practical benefit. Sometimes I think it is only an interesting mind game but no useful tool. Sure it is wise to clarify your modeling vocabulary: some may say class where others say entity or concept, but this is just simple documentation your modeling terminology. Meta-modeling, as I understand it, is more complex, as it tries to formalize and abstract modeling. Some good examples are Keet's formal comparison of conceptual data modeling languages (UML, ERM and ORM) from academia and the Meta Object Facility (MOF) from industry. To me MOF looks as impractical as CORBA, which was also created by OMG. In theory you could use meta-modeling to transform and integrate models in different modeling languages, but is anyone actually doing this?

    Read the article

  • Data Modeling Resources

    - by Dejan Sarka
    You can find many different data modeling resources. It is impossible to list all of them. I selected only the most valuable ones for me, and, of course, the ones I contributed to. Books Chris J. Date: An Introduction to Database Systems – IMO a “must” to understand the relational model correctly. Terry Halpin, Tony Morgan: Information Modeling and Relational Databases – meet the object-role modeling leaders. Chris J. Date, Nikos Lorentzos and Hugh Darwen: Time and Relational Theory, Second Edition: Temporal Databases in the Relational Model and SQL – all theory needed to manage temporal data. Louis Davidson, Jessica M. Moss: Pro SQL Server 2012 Relational Database Design and Implementation – the best SQL Server focused data modeling book I know by two of my friends. Dejan Sarka, et al.: MCITP Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-441): Designing Database Solutions by Using Microsoft® SQL Server™ 2005 – SQL Server 2005 data modeling training kit. Most of the text is still valid for SQL Server 2008, 2008 R2, 2012 and 2014. Itzik Ben-Gan, Lubor Kollar, Dejan Sarka, Steve Kass: Inside Microsoft SQL Server 2008 T-SQL Querying – Steve wrote a chapter with mathematical background, and I added a chapter with theoretical introduction to the relational model. Itzik Ben-Gan, Dejan Sarka, Roger Wolter, Greg Low, Ed Katibah, Isaac Kunen: Inside Microsoft SQL Server 2008 T-SQL Programming – I added three chapters with theoretical introduction and practical solutions for the user-defined data types, dynamic schema and temporal data. Dejan Sarka, Matija Lah, Grega Jerkic: Training Kit (Exam 70-463): Implementing a Data Warehouse with Microsoft SQL Server 2012 – my first two chapters are about data warehouse design and implementation. Courses Data Modeling Essentials – I wrote a 3-day course for SolidQ. If you are interested in this course, which I could also deliver in a shorter seminar way, you can contact your closes SolidQ subsidiary, or, of course, me directly on addresses [email protected] or [email protected]. This course could also complement the existing courseware portfolio of training providers, which are welcome to contact me as well. Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications – online course I wrote for Pluralsight. Working with Temporal data in SQL Server – my latest Pluralsight course, where besides theory and implementation I introduce many original ways how to optimize temporal queries. Forthcoming presentations SQL Bits 12, July 17th – 19th, Telford, UK – I have a full-day pre-conference seminar Advanced Data Modeling Topics there.

    Read the article

  • Data Modeling: Logical Modeling Exercise

    - by swisscheese
    In trying to learn the art of data storage I have been trying to take in as much solid information as possible. PerformanceDBA posted some really helpful tutorials/examples in the following posts among others: is my data normalized? and Relational table naming convention. I already asked a subset question of this model here. So to make sure I understood the concepts he presented and I have seen elsewhere I wanted to take things a step or two further and see if I am grasping the concepts. Hence the purpose of this post, which hopefully others can also learn from. Everything I present is conceptual to me and for learning rather than applying it in some production system. It would be cool to get some input from PerformanceDBA also since I used his models to get started, but I appreciate all input given from anyone. As I am new to databases and especially modeling I will be the first to admit that I may not always ask the right questions, explain my thoughts clearly, or use the right verbage due to lack of expertise on the subject. So please keep that in mind and feel free to steer me in the right direction if I head off track. If there is enough interest in this I would like to take this from the logical to physical phases to show the evolution of the process and share it here on Stack. I will keep this thread for the Logical Diagram though and start new one for the additional steps. For my understanding I will be building a MySQL DB in the end to run some tests and see if what I came up with actually works. Here is the list of things that I want to capture in this conceptual model. Edit for V1.2 The purpose of this is to list Bands, their members, and the Events that they will be appearing at, as well as offer music and other merchandise for sale Members will be able to match up with friends Members can write reviews on the Bands, their music, and their events. There can only be one review per member on a given item, although they can edit their reviews and history will be maintained. BandMembers will have the chance to write a single Comment on Reviews about the Band they are associated with. Collectively as a Band only one Comment is allowed per Review. Members can then rate all Reviews and Comments but only once per given instance Members can select their favorite Bands, music, Merchandise, and Events Bands, Songs, and Events will be categorized into the type of Genre that they are and then further subcategorized into a SubGenre if necessary. It is ok for a Band or Event to fall into more then one Genre/SubGenre combination. Event date, time, and location will be posted for a given band and members can show that they will be attending the Event. An Event can be comprised of more than one Band, and multiple Events can take place at a single location on the same day Every party will be tied to at least one address and address history shall be maintained. Each party could also be tied to more then one address at a time (i.e. billing, shipping, physical) There will be stored profiles for Bands, BandMembers, and general members. So there it is, maybe a bit involved but could be a great learning tool for many hopefully as the process evolves and input is given by the community. Any input? EDIT v1.1 In response to PerformanceDBA U.3) That means no merchandise other than Band merchandise in the database. Correct ? That was my original thought but you got me thinking. Maybe the site would want to sell its own merchandise or even other merchandise from the bands. Not sure a mod to make for that. Would it require an entire rework of the Catalog section or just the identifying relationship that exists with the Band? Attempted a mod to sell both complete albums or song. Either way they would both be in electronic format only available for download. That is why I listed an Album as being comprised of Songs rather then 2 separate entities. U.5) I understand what you bring up about the circular relation with Favorite. I would like to get to this “It is either one Entity with some form of differentiation (FavoriteType) which identifies its treatment” but how to is not clear to me. What am I missing here? u.6) “Business Rules This is probably the only area you are weak in.” Thanks for the honest response. I will readdress these but I hope to clear up some confusion in my head first with the responses I have posted back to you. Q.1) Yes I would like to have Accepted, Rejected, and Blocked. I am not sure what you are referring to as to how this would change the logical model? Q.2) A person does not have to be a User. They can exist only as a BandMember. Is that what you are asking? Minor Issue Zero, One, or More…Oops I admit I forgot to give this attention when building the model. I am submitting this version as is and will address in a future version. I need to read up more on Constraint Checking to make sure I am understanding things. M.4) Depends if you envision OrderPurchase in the future. Can you expand as to what you mean here? EDIT V1.2 In response to PerformanceDBA input... Lessons learned. I was mixing the concept of Identifying / Non-Identifying and Cardinality (i.e. Genre / SubGenre), and doing so inconsistently to make things worse. Associative Tables are not required in Logical Diagrams as their many-to-many relationships can be depicted and then expanded in the Physical Model. I was overlooking the Cardinality in a lot of the relationships The importance of reading through relationships using effective Verb Phrases to reassure I am modeling what I want to accomplish. U.2) In the concept of this model it is only required to track a Venue as a location for an Event. No further data needs to be collected. With that being said Events will take place on a given EventDate and will be hosted at a Venue. Venues will host multiple events and possibly multiple events on a given date. In my new model my thinking was that EventDate is already tied to Event . Therefore, Venue will not need a relationship with EventDate. The 5th and 6th bullets you have listed under U.2) leave me questioning my thinking though. Am I missing something here? U.3) Is it time to move the link between Item and Band up to Item and Party instead? With the current design I don't see a possibility to sell merchandise not tied to the band as you have brought up. U.5) I left as per your input rather than making it a discrete Supertype/Subtype Relationship as I don’t see a benefit of having that type of roll up. Additional Revisions AR.1) After going through the exercise for FavoriteItem, I feel that Item to Review requires a many-to-many relationship so that is indicated. Necessary? Ok here we go for v1.3 I took a few days on this version, going back and forth with my design. Once the logical process is complete, as I want to see if I am on the right track, I will go through in depth what I had learned and the troubles I faced as a beginner going through this process. The big point for this version was it took throwing in some Keys to help see what I was missing in the past. Going through the process of doing a matrix proved to be of great help also. Regardless of anything, if it wasn't for the input given by PerformanceDBA I would still be a lost soul wondering in the dark. Who knows my current design might reaffirm that I still am, but I have learned a lot so I am know I at least have a flashlight in my hand. At this point in time I admit that I am still confused about identifying and non-identifying relationships. In my model I had to use non-identifying relationships with non nulls just to join the relationships I wanted to model. In reading a lot on the subject there seems to be a lot of disagreement and indecisiveness on the subject so I did what I thought represented the right things in my model. When to force (identifying) and when to be free (non-identifying)? Anyone have inputs? EDIT V1.4 Ok took the V1.3 inputs and cleaned things up for this V1.4 Currently working on a V1.5 to include attributes.

    Read the article

  • Oracle BI Server Modeling, Part 1- Designing a Query Factory

    - by bob.ertl(at)oracle.com
      Welcome to Oracle BI Development's BI Foundation blog, focused on helping you get the most value from your Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition (BI EE) platform deployments.  In my first series of posts, I plan to show developers the concepts and best practices for modeling in the Common Enterprise Information Model (CEIM), the semantic layer of Oracle BI EE.  In this segment, I will lay the groundwork for the modeling concepts.  First, I will cover the big picture of how the BI Server fits into the system, and how the CEIM controls the query processing. Oracle BI EE Query Cycle The purpose of the Oracle BI Server is to bridge the gap between the presentation services and the data sources.  There are typically a variety of data sources in a variety of technologies: relational, normalized transaction systems; relational star-schema data warehouses and marts; multidimensional analytic cubes and financial applications; flat files, Excel files, XML files, and so on. Business datasets can reside in a single type of source, or, most of the time, are spread across various types of sources. Presentation services users are generally business people who need to be able to query that set of sources without any knowledge of technologies, schemas, or how sources are organized in their company. They think of business analysis in terms of measures with specific calculations, hierarchical dimensions for breaking those measures down, and detailed reports of the business transactions themselves.  Most of them create queries without knowing it, by picking a dashboard page and some filters.  Others create their own analysis by selecting metrics and dimensional attributes, and possibly creating additional calculations. The BI Server bridges that gap from simple business terms to technical physical queries by exposing just the business focused measures and dimensional attributes that business people can use in their analyses and dashboards.   After they make their selections and start the analysis, the BI Server plans the best way to query the data sources, writes the optimized sequence of physical queries to those sources, post-processes the results, and presents them to the client as a single result set suitable for tables, pivots and charts. The CEIM is a model that controls the processing of the BI Server.  It provides the subject areas that presentation services exposes for business users to select simplified metrics and dimensional attributes for their analysis.  It models the mappings to the physical data access, the calculations and logical transformations, and the data access security rules.  The CEIM consists of metadata stored in the repository, authored by developers using the Administration Tool client.     Presentation services and other query clients create their queries in BI EE's SQL-92 language, called Logical SQL or LSQL.  The API simply uses ODBC or JDBC to pass the query to the BI Server.  Presentation services writes the LSQL query in terms of the simplified objects presented to the users.  The BI Server creates a query plan, and rewrites the LSQL into fully-detailed SQL or other languages suitable for querying the physical sources.  For example, the LSQL on the left below was rewritten into the physical SQL for an Oracle 11g database on the right. Logical SQL   Physical SQL SELECT "D0 Time"."T02 Per Name Month" saw_0, "D4 Product"."P01  Product" saw_1, "F2 Units"."2-01  Billed Qty  (Sum All)" saw_2 FROM "Sample Sales" ORDER BY saw_0, saw_1       WITH SAWITH0 AS ( select T986.Per_Name_Month as c1, T879.Prod_Dsc as c2,      sum(T835.Units) as c3, T879.Prod_Key as c4 from      Product T879 /* A05 Product */ ,      Time_Mth T986 /* A08 Time Mth */ ,      FactsRev T835 /* A11 Revenue (Billed Time Join) */ where ( T835.Prod_Key = T879.Prod_Key and T835.Bill_Mth = T986.Row_Wid) group by T879.Prod_Dsc, T879.Prod_Key, T986.Per_Name_Month ) select SAWITH0.c1 as c1, SAWITH0.c2 as c2, SAWITH0.c3 as c3 from SAWITH0 order by c1, c2   Probably everybody reading this blog can write SQL or MDX.  However, the trick in designing the CEIM is that you are modeling a query-generation factory.  Rather than hand-crafting individual queries, you model behavior and relationships, thus configuring the BI Server machinery to manufacture millions of different queries in response to random user requests.  This mass production requires a different mindset and approach than when you are designing individual SQL statements in tools such as Oracle SQL Developer, Oracle Hyperion Interactive Reporting (formerly Brio), or Oracle BI Publisher.   The Structure of the Common Enterprise Information Model (CEIM) The CEIM has a unique structure specifically for modeling the relationships and behaviors that fill the gap from logical user requests to physical data source queries and back to the result.  The model divides the functionality into three specialized layers, called Presentation, Business Model and Mapping, and Physical, as shown below. Presentation services clients can generally only see the presentation layer, and the objects in the presentation layer are normally the only ones used in the LSQL request.  When a request comes into the BI Server from presentation services or another client, the relationships and objects in the model allow the BI Server to select the appropriate data sources, create a query plan, and generate the physical queries.  That's the left to right flow in the diagram below.  When the results come back from the data source queries, the right to left relationships in the model show how to transform the results and perform any final calculations and functions that could not be pushed down to the databases.   Business Model Think of the business model as the heart of the CEIM you are designing.  This is where you define the analytic behavior seen by the users, and the superset library of metric and dimension objects available to the user community as a whole.  It also provides the baseline business-friendly names and user-readable dictionary.  For these reasons, it is often called the "logical" model--it is a virtual database schema that persists no data, but can be queried as if it is a database. The business model always has a dimensional shape (more on this in future posts), and its simple shape and terminology hides the complexity of the source data models. Besides hiding complexity and normalizing terminology, this layer adds most of the analytic value, as well.  This is where you define the rich, dimensional behavior of the metrics and complex business calculations, as well as the conformed dimensions and hierarchies.  It contributes to the ease of use for business users, since the dimensional metric definitions apply in any context of filters and drill-downs, and the conformed dimensions enable dashboard-wide filters and guided analysis links that bring context along from one page to the next.  The conformed dimensions also provide a key to hiding the complexity of many sources, including federation of different databases, behind the simple business model. Note that the expression language in this layer is LSQL, so that any expression can be rewritten into any data source's query language at run time.  This is important for federation, where a given logical object can map to several different physical objects in different databases.  It is also important to portability of the CEIM to different database brands, which is a key requirement for Oracle's BI Applications products. Your requirements process with your user community will mostly affect the business model.  This is where you will define most of the things they specifically ask for, such as metric definitions.  For this reason, many of the best-practice methodologies of our consulting partners start with the high-level definition of this layer. Physical Model The physical model connects the business model that meets your users' requirements to the reality of the data sources you have available. In the query factory analogy, think of the physical layer as the bill of materials for generating physical queries.  Every schema, table, column, join, cube, hierarchy, etc., that will appear in any physical query manufactured at run time must be modeled here at design time. Each physical data source will have its own physical model, or "database" object in the CEIM.  The shape of each physical model matches the shape of its physical source.  In other words, if the source is normalized relational, the physical model will mimic that normalized shape.  If it is a hypercube, the physical model will have a hypercube shape.  If it is a flat file, it will have a denormalized tabular shape. To aid in query optimization, the physical layer also tracks the specifics of the database brand and release.  This allows the BI Server to make the most of each physical source's distinct capabilities, writing queries in its syntax, and using its specific functions. This allows the BI Server to push processing work as deep as possible into the physical source, which minimizes data movement and takes full advantage of the database's own optimizer.  For most data sources, native APIs are used to further optimize performance and functionality. The value of having a distinct separation between the logical (business) and physical models is encapsulation of the physical characteristics.  This encapsulation is another enabler of packaged BI applications and federation.  It is also key to hiding the complex shapes and relationships in the physical sources from the end users.  Consider a routine drill-down in the business model: physically, it can require a drill-through where the first query is MDX to a multidimensional cube, followed by the drill-down query in SQL to a normalized relational database.  The only difference from the user's point of view is that the 2nd query added a more detailed dimension level column - everything else was the same. Mappings Within the Business Model and Mapping Layer, the mappings provide the binding from each logical column and join in the dimensional business model, to each of the objects that can provide its data in the physical layer.  When there is more than one option for a physical source, rules in the mappings are applied to the query context to determine which of the data sources should be hit, and how to combine their results if more than one is used.  These rules specify aggregate navigation, vertical partitioning (fragmentation), and horizontal partitioning, any of which can be federated across multiple, heterogeneous sources.  These mappings are usually the most sophisticated part of the CEIM. Presentation You might think of the presentation layer as a set of very simple relational-like views into the business model.  Over ODBC/JDBC, they present a relational catalog consisting of databases, tables and columns.  For business users, presentation services interprets these as subject areas, folders and columns, respectively.  (Note that in 10g, subject areas were called presentation catalogs in the CEIM.  In this blog, I will stick to 11g terminology.)  Generally speaking, presentation services and other clients can query only these objects (there are exceptions for certain clients such as BI Publisher and Essbase Studio). The purpose of the presentation layer is to specialize the business model for different categories of users.  Based on a user's role, they will be restricted to specific subject areas, tables and columns for security.  The breakdown of the model into multiple subject areas organizes the content for users, and subjects superfluous to a particular business role can be hidden from that set of users.  Customized names and descriptions can be used to override the business model names for a specific audience.  Variables in the object names can be used for localization. For these reasons, you are better off thinking of the tables in the presentation layer as folders than as strict relational tables.  The real semantics of tables and how they function is in the business model, and any grouping of columns can be included in any table in the presentation layer.  In 11g, an LSQL query can also span multiple presentation subject areas, as long as they map to the same business model. Other Model Objects There are some objects that apply to multiple layers.  These include security-related objects, such as application roles, users, data filters, and query limits (governors).  There are also variables you can use in parameters and expressions, and initialization blocks for loading their initial values on a static or user session basis.  Finally, there are Multi-User Development (MUD) projects for developers to check out units of work, and objects for the marketing feature used by our packaged customer relationship management (CRM) software.   The Query Factory At this point, you should have a grasp on the query factory concept.  When developing the CEIM model, you are configuring the BI Server to automatically manufacture millions of queries in response to random user requests. You do this by defining the analytic behavior in the business model, mapping that to the physical data sources, and exposing it through the presentation layer's role-based subject areas. While configuring mass production requires a different mindset than when you hand-craft individual SQL or MDX statements, it builds on the modeling and query concepts you already understand. The following posts in this series will walk through the CEIM modeling concepts and best practices in detail.  We will initially review dimensional concepts so you can understand the business model, and then present a pattern-based approach to learning the mappings from a variety of physical schema shapes and deployments to the dimensional model.  Along the way, we will also present the dimensional calculation template, and learn how to configure the many additivity patterns.

    Read the article

  • general database modeling and django specific modeling

    - by Shreko
    I'm wondering what is the best way to model something like the following. Lets say my company sells metal bars (parameters/fields are: length, profile_type, quantity etc.) of different profiles, where profiles may be pipe(pipe_diameter, wall_thickness) or hollow_rectangle(base, height, wall_thickness), or maybe some other profile with different parameters. Lets say maximum number of profiles would be 12, each profile having between 2-5 parameters. Should everything be in a single table like table_bars: id, length, quantity, profile_type, pipe_diameter, wall_thickness, base, height, etc.) where profile type would be (pipe, rectangle etc.) or should every shape have its own table with its own parameters and in table_bars keep only id, length, quantity profile_type and profile_id) and are there any django specific issues is multiple tables are the best answer? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications

    - by Dejan Sarka
    I am proud to announce that my first course for Pluralsight is released. The course title is Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications. Here is the description of the course. A bad data model leads to an application that does not perform well. Therefore, when developing an application, you should create a good data model from the start. However, even the best logical model can’t help when the physical implementation is bad. It is also important to know how SQL Server stores and accesses data, and how to optimize the data access. Database optimization starts by splitting transactional and analytical applications. In this course, you learn how to support analytical applications with logical design, get understanding of the problems with data access for queries that deal with large amounts of data, and learn about SQL Server optimizations that help solving these problems. Enjoy the course!

    Read the article

  • Modeling related objects and their templates

    - by Duddle
    Hello everybody! I am having trouble correctly modeling related objects that can use templates. This is not homework, but part of a small project in the university. In this application the user can add several elements, which can either be passive or active. Each concrete element has different attributes, these must be set by the user. See diagram 1: Since the user will create many elements, we want there to be templates for each type of element, so some of the attributes are filled in automatically. See diagram 2: In my opinion, this is a bad design. For example, to get all possible templates for a PassiveElementA-object, there has to be a list/set somewhere that only holds PassiveElementATemplate-objects. There has to be a separate list for each subclass of Element. So if you wanted to add a new PassiveElement-child, you also have to edit the class which holds all these separate lists. I cannot figure out a good way to solve this problem. Since the concrete classes (i.e. PassiveElementA, ..., PassiveElementZ) have so many different attributes, many of the design patterns I know do not work. Thanks in advance for any hints, and sorry for my bad English.

    Read the article

  • Review: Data Modeling 101

    I just recently read “Data Modeling 101”by Scott W. Ambler where he gave an overview of fundamental data modeling skills. I think this article was excellent for anyone who was just starting to learn or refresh their skills in regards to the modeling of data.  Scott defines data modeling as the act of exploring data oriented structures.  He goes on to explain about how data models are actually used by defining three different types of models. Types of Data Models Conceptual Data Model  Logical Data Model (LDMs) Physical Data Model(PDMs) He further expands on modeling by exploring common data modeling notations because there are no industry standards for the practice of data modeling. Scott then defines how to actually model data by expanding on entities, attributes, identities, and relationships which are the basic building blocks of data models. In addition he discusses the value of normalization for redundancy and demoralization for performance. Finally, he discuss ways in which Developers and DBAs can become better data modelers through the use of practice, and seeking guidance from more experienced data modelers.

    Read the article

  • Construction Paper, Legos, and Architectural Modeling

    I can remember as a kid playing with construction paper and Legos to explore my imagination. Through my exploration I was able to build airplanes, footballs, guns, and more, out of paper. Additionally I could create entire cities, robots, or anything else I could image out of Legos.  These toys, I now realize were in fact tools that gave me an opportunity to explore my ideas in the physical world through the use of modeling.  My imagination was allowed to run wild as I, unknowingly at the time, made design decisions that directly affected the models I was building from the raw materials.  To prove my point further, I can remember building a paper airplane that seemed to go nowhere when I tried to throw it. So I decided to attach a paper clip to the plane before I decided to throw it the next time to test my concept that by adding more weight to the plane that it would fly better and for longer distances. The paper airplane allowed me to model my design decision through the use of creating an artifact in that I created a paper airplane that was carrying extra weight through the incorporation of the paper clip in to the design. Also, I remember using Legos to build all sorts of creations, and these creations became artifacts of my imagination. As I further and further defined my Lego creations through the process of playing I was able to create elaborate artifacts of my imagination. These artifacts represented design decision I had made in the evolution of my creation through my child like design process. In some form or fashion the artifacts I created as a kid are very similar to the artifacts that I create when I model a software architectural concept or a software design in that the process of making decisions is directly translated in to a tangible model in the form of an architectural model. Architectural models have been defined as artifacts that depict design decisions of a system’s architecture.  The act of creating architectural models is the act of architectural modeling. Furthermore, architectural modeling is the process of creating a physical model based architectural concepts and documenting these design decisions. In the process of creating models, the standard notation used is Architectural modeling notation. This notation is the primary method of capturing the essence of design decisions regarding architecture.  Modeling notations can vary based on the need and intent of a project; typically they range from natural language to a diagram based notation. Currently, Unified Markup Language (UML) is the industry standard in terms of architectural modeling notation  because allows for architectures to be defined through a series of boxes, lines, arrows and other basic symbols that encapsulate design designs in to virtual components, connectors, configurations and interfaces.  Furthermore UML allows for additional break down of models through the use of natural language as to explain each section of the model in plain English. One of the major factors in architectural modeling is to define what is to be modeled. As a basic rule of thumb, I tend to model architecture based on the complexity of systems or sub sub-systems of architecture. Another key factor is the level of detail that is actually needed for a model. For example if I am modeling a system for a CEO to view then the low level details will be omitted. In comparison, if I was modeling a system for another engineer to actually implement I would include as much detailed information as I could to help the engineer implement my design.

    Read the article

  • Is there a canonical book on general abstractions and modeling?

    - by David The Man
    I've been trying to understand the fundamentals of general abstractions and modeling: there are quite a lot of books when you search for abstractions, but most of those seem to be about learning object-oriented programming in a given language. Is there a book out there that's the de-facto standard for describing best practices, design methodologies, and other helpful information about general abstractions and modeling? What about that book makes it special?

    Read the article

  • Is it Considered Good SQL practice to use GUID to link multiple tables to same Id field?

    - by Mallow
    I want to link several tables to a many-to-many(m2m) table. One table would be called location and this table would always be on one side of the m2m table. But I will have a list of several tables for example: Cards Photographs Illustrations Vectors Would using GUID's between these tables to link it to a single column in another table be considered 'Good Practice'? Will Mysql let me to have it automatically cascade updates and delete? If so, would multiple cascades lead to an issues? UPDATE I've read that GUID (a hex number) Generally takes up more space in a database and slows queries down. However I could still generate 'unique' ids by just having the table initial's as part of the id so that the table card's id would be c0001, and then Illustrations be I001. Regardless of this change, the questions still stands.

    Read the article

  • Procedural modeling of Robots?

    - by anon
    Procedural techniques is common for texture synthesis, modeling plants, and modeling terrains. However, I've seen very little work on algorithmic construction of robots, which is a bit surprising given how mechanical these systems are. Anyone have a good resource on the algorithmic construction of robots / robotic humanoids? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • SQLAuthority News – Download Whitepaper – Choosing a Tabular or Multidimensional Modeling Experience in SQL Server 2012 Analysis Services

    - by pinaldave
    Data modeling is the most important task for any BI professional. Matter of the fact, the biggest challenge is to organizing disparate data into an analytic model that effectively and efficiently supports the reporting and analysis. SQL Server 2012 introduces BI Semantic Model (BISM), a single model that can support a broad range of reporting and analysis while blending two Analysis Services modeling experiences behind the scenes. Multidimensional modeling – enables BI professionals to create sophisticated multidimensional cubes using traditional online analytical processing (OLAP). Tabular modeling – provides self-service data modeling capabilities to business and data analysts. As data modeling is evolving and business needs are growing new technologies and tools are emerging to help end users to make the necessary adjustment to the reporting and analysis needs. This white paper is will provide practical guidance to help you decide which SQL Server 2012 Analysis Services modeling experience – tabular or multidimensional. Do let me know what do is your opinion as a comment. In simple word – I would like to know when will you use Tabular modeling and when Multidimensional modeling? Download Choosing a Tabular or Multidimensional Modeling Experience in SQL Server 2012 Analysis Services Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Business Intelligence, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL White Papers, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • The effects of Agile Programming can alter the five desirable properties of modeling tools and techniques

    The effects of Agile Programming can alter the five desirable properties of modeling tools and techniques as documented by Pfleeger. The agile methodology does promote human understanding and communication through the use of short iterative software development life cycles which forces stakeholders to review the project and adjust the project for any requirement changes.  Due to the consistent evaluations of a project and requirements, process are continually being refined, upgraded, and compared against other alternatives to ensure the best design delivered to the client. Due to the short repetitive development cycles, increased time is devoted to process management due to the fact that requirements and designs could be constantly changing. This requires additional forecasting, monitoring, and planning for each iteration. Because things can change so rapidly, automated guidance in performing process must be updated for each iteration because the environment and the available reusable process could change. In addition, the original guidance and suggestions for the project also need to be updated to account for these changes as well.   In essence the automation of process execution is supported by the agile methodology because during every iteration all processes must be tested, evaluated to ensure process integrity and compliance with the customer’s requirements. I do not think the agile approach diminishes modeling, in fact I think it increases the modeling because before the start of every development cycle, modeling must be checked for accuracy based on the changed requirements. So in essence the reduced time spent initially designing the models is in fact gained as the project completes every iteration of the project.

    Read the article

  • Non-relational database modeling tool?

    - by Angel Escobedo
    Hey guys, please recommend some tools you have used succesfully on DW, DataMart, BI an non-relational modeling. Example for automatic creation of snow-flake Schemas, dimensions and facts tables. Wich tools makes you sense familiarity with the diagrams and surrogates keys and it will have the option for export or connect to SQL Server 2008. Thanks

    Read the article

  • looking for automated modeling tool for ASP.Net class diagramming

    - by alchemical
    I'm walking into a project with 500+ classes, and am wondering if anyone has had good experiences with automated modeling tools that can import from ASP.Net /C#? It would be a bonus if I could get an automated model based on all the objects called to completely load a single ASP.Net page, with relationships indicating which objects are calling out to which other ones, etc. Thanks for sharing your thoughts or recomendations.

    Read the article

  • Modeling Tools that understand both Relational and LDAP

    - by jm04469
    I am looking to do some modeling and would like to have a tool that can capture not only a relational model like ERWIN but also allow us to easily port to LDAP as an option. NOTE: Visio can connect to an existing LDAP server and draw, but does not allow for you to model first and then deploy, unlike its relational capabilities.

    Read the article

  • Open Source - EER Modeling Tool

    - by Nick Fergis
    Is there a good open source or reasonably priced EER modeling tool for MySQL besides MySQL Workbench? I find the MySQL Workbench interface to be clunky. I would like to be able to manage my production schema beginning all design changes in the EER and propogating those out to my schema for created and altered tables. Is anyone use a tool they love to manage their environments in this way? Thanks. - Nick

    Read the article

  • GAE modeling relationship options

    - by Sway
    Hi there, I need to model the following situation and I can't seem to find a consistent example on how to do it "correctly" for the google app engine. Suppose I've got a simple situation like the following: [Company] 1 ----- M [Stare] A company has one to many stores. Each store has an address made up of a address line 1, city, state, country, postcode etc. Ok. Lets say we need to create say an "Audit". An Audit is for a company and can be across one to many stares. So something like: [Audit] 1 ------ 1 [Company] 1 ------ M [Store] Now we need to query all of the "audits" based on the Store "addresses" in order to send the "Auditors" to the right locations. There seem to be numerous articles like this one: http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/modeling.html Which give examples of creating a "ContactCompany" model class. However they also say that you should use this kind of relationship only when you "really need to" and with "care" for performance. I've also read - frequently - that you should denormalize as much as possible thereby moving all of the "query-able" data into the Audit class. So what would you suggest as the best way to solve this? I've seen that there is an Expando class but I'm not sure if that is the "best" option for this. Any help or thoughts on this would be totally appreciated. Thanks in advance, Matt

    Read the article

  • Handling incremental Data Modeling Changes in Functional Programming

    - by Adam Gent
    Most of the problems I have to solve in my job as a developer have to do with data modeling. For example in a OOP Web Application world I often have to change the data properties that are in a object to meet new requirements. If I'm lucky I don't even need to programmatically add new "behavior" code (functions,methods). Instead I can declarative add validation and even UI options by annotating the property (Java). In Functional Programming it seems that adding new data properties requires lots of code changes because of pattern matching and data constructors (Haskell, ML). How do I minimize this problem? This seems to be a recognized problem as Xavier Leroy states nicely on page 24 of "Objects and Classes vs. Modules" - To summarize for those that don't have a PostScript viewer it basically says FP languages are better than OOP languages for adding new behavior over data objects but OOP languages are better for adding new data objects/properties. Are there any design pattern used in FP languages to help mitigate this problem? I have read Phillip Wadler's recommendation of using Monads to help this modularity problem but I'm not sure I understand how?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >