By Karen Lopez on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:02 PM

While waiting for my desktop to reboot today, I decided to mine some data about our ERwin User Discussion Group.  This was our first mailing list / online community, which we volunteered to manage after Duncan Dwelle decided to get out of the mailing list "business" he started in 1995.  The ERwin Mailing list is now 13 years old -- a bratty teenager if I ever saw one.

Prior to our current implementation under WebBoard, we ran the list on my 486 PC in my basement.  Duncan passed along the list of users to us in 1997, which we ran on that slow, lonely PC.  Deciding that I needed a more robust solution, I created the WebBoard version of the list on 23 July 1999.  I most likely held off approving new messages until there were a significant number of users registered, as Robert Pangborn was the first to post a message (other than me).  His message was an introduction.  Rick Bosworth and Doug Stone made their introductions shortly afterwards.  I invite Robert, Rick, and Doug to post updates to their introductions.  Maybe we all should?

The Data Modeling List was created just a couple of days later.

To date there are just over 7,200 messages posted to the ERwin User Discussion Group.  Doug Stone made the first non-introduction post on opening day in the ERwin 3x Conference:

NU has had much success with SP2 for ERwin. It appears to have eliminated
some column ordering problems. We have since moved from build 434 to 436+
and that solved some small glitches. For ModelMart it has helped as well.
The only thing we seem to have more of on SP2 for ModelMart is bad columns
(they are missing references in indexes) but that may have something to do
with our Mart.
Doug
P.S. Karen, the email version of the ERwin list sends an incredible number
of
characters. I don't know what they are. Perhaps my email system
is adding or translating them, but I did not get them before. Can they be
removed from your server? Or maybe I need a text only email version?

Ah, and he reference one of the most annoying bugs in the WebBoard product that lasted for years because the product manager for WebBoard thought that it wasn't that bad because no one expected e-mail to be clear.  This bug caused a lot of HTML like < pr > to show up in the messages.  So painful.  But you have to remember this was 1999 and many people in the tech industry (including some people I worked for and some members of the DAMA International Board) predicted that this whole Internet and e-mail thing was a fad that would soon die off.  So fixing what was then perceived as a technical glitch being complained about by a bunch of technical people was just not a priority.  Finally, though, a new product manager got it fixed.

While we have no way of telling which message is the most read, since most of you read the messages via e-mail, a posting about CA ERwin v4.0 Beta is our most viewed message on the discussion group website - a whopping 20,295 times.  Of course, now that I've posted a link to it, that number will increase.  I highly recommend a trip down memory lane for all of you to read about the excitement surrounding the eminent release of ERwin 4.0.   This post also holds the record for most number of posts for the thread, at 35 messages.

The second most viewed message is one on CA Direction for ERwin, posted by Tom Bilcze.

The message with the longest life span (from first post to last reply) is a message I posted to the Contribute Tips and Trick conference on the Mass import of Definitions.  I first posted this in January 2000 and the last reply was May 2007, for a life span of 2660 days.

So while technically we should celebrate the anniversary of our community as having started sometime in 1995 when Duncan started his mailing list, I think we should celebrate the creation of community on the WebBoard.  That means that 23 July is our date.  Watch for future posts about our celebration.

By Karen Lopez on Monday, June 16, 2008 8:03 PM

Like many of you in North America, we've been experiencing some pretty frightening weather over the last couple of weeks.  No flooding or real permanent damage here in Toronto, but there has been enough green skies, sideways rain, power outages, and wind to tear up a few plants and to send me emotionally back to my elementary school days of tornado drills and missing buildings.

Today I was on the phone with Andrea from DAMA Minnesota when the skies turned dark and the rain started pouring down.  I told her that I may lose the call because our power seems to go out at the drop of a...raindrop.  Then the noise started.  It got louder...then LOUDER.  At first I thought it was small branches hitting my office windows, but when I looked out, I could see snow.  No, wait, that's not snow, that's hail.  Then the big ones started coming down, bouncing up about a metre in the air, then finally coming to a stop.

Having grown up in the US Midwest, I take these sorts of weather patterns seriously.  So I rushed Andrea off the phone and found a safer place in the house to wait it out.  I thought for sure that the skylights were going to break and that some of our larger windows would be the next to go.

But about 5 minutes later, it was blue skies again.

However, my brain went into a sort of "gotta gets some work done before the power goes out" mode.  I finished writing three sections of a report that should have been done last week.  I polished off a big chunk of my to-do list.  I booked a couple of months of travel arrangements.  I think instead of my usual "what can I do to procrastinate these unbearable to-dos", my brain had shifted into survival mode ... or at least some type of panic mode.

Maybe there's some sort of productivity tool here: switching from glued-to-the-computer boredom to life threatening (or at least fear of life threatening) mode can be a new form of Getting Things Done.

By Karen Lopez on Friday, June 13, 2008 4:58 PM

I know from speaking to you at conferences and DAMA meetings that many of your organizations use Len Silverston's Universal Data Models:

Now you can get a real data model of these universal data models in Embarcadero ER/Studio format directly from Embarcadero:

The Universal Data Models now available for ER/Studio customers were developed by renowned author and modeling expert Len Silverston, and will now be sold by Embarcadero, the fastest growing worldwide database design vendor in 2006 based on total software revenue according to Gartner Dataquest.

"On average, at least 60 percent of a data model or data warehouse design consists of common constructs that are applicable to most enterprises," said Silverston. "This means that most data modeling or data warehouse design efforts are at some point re-creating constructs that have been built many times before. By leveraging the standard Universal Data Models, Embarcadero ER/Studio customers can more quickly develop data models and save on maintenance by using the agile modeling constructs."

In addition to dramatically reducing development time, the Universal Data Models for ER/Studio improve the quality of data models by providing a quality assurance checkpoint to validate work and foresee possible pitfalls.

"Making a mistake in the design process and not catching it until production can cost a company millions of dollars," said Jason Tiret, senior product manager for ER/Studio, Embarcadero Technologies. "We have found that reusable data models are the most effective way for database professionals to achieve maximum productivity and quality assurance while reducing risk. They can also serve as an independent, common standard for organizations grappling to agree on one."

Laid out in ER/Studio's easy-to-read format, the Universal Data Models are categorized into nine individual subject areas that can be combined to form a complete and integrated corporate model. The nine subject areas include:

• People & Organizations
• Product
• Orders & Agreements
• Shipments & Deliveries
• Work Effort & Project Management
• Invoicing & Time Billing
• Accounting & Budgeting
• Human Resources
• Web & e-Commerce

In addition, seven industry-specific Universal Data Models are available, including:

• Banking, Investments & Financial Services
• Healthcare
• Insurance
• Professional Services
• Manufacturing
• Telecommunications
• Travel

Pricing and Availability
The Universal Data Models for ER/Studio are now available worldwide via Embarcadero's direct sales representatives. US customers can also place orders via Embarcadero's e-commerce site. Pricing starts at $1,295 USD. For more information, visit www.embarcadero.com.

By Karen Lopez on Friday, June 13, 2008 4:26 PM

Check out the InfoAdvisors Calendar (bottom of the page) for information about my upcoming speaking engagements in California and Oregon.

• DAMA Sacramento: 23 June 2008
• DAMA Los Angeles: 25 June 2008
• DAMA Portland, OR: 26 June 2008

  Also note that Rob and I will be running the Reach the Bridge 8k fun run for the Oregon Lung Association on 29 June.  DAMA Portland has a team (the DAMA Downhillers) , so if you are in the Portland area and thinking of walking or running this event, you can sign up under that team name (even if you aren't a DAMA member).  This is a non-time, non-competitive run or walk from the World Wildlife Center to the Burnside Bridge.  The key is that you can pick the time you'd like to start and then try to get to the other side of the drawbridge before it opens.

I think this reverse-time event makes for a great analogy for what we do, don't you?

By Karen Lopez on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:23 AM

Embarcadero Technologies has announced an open beta program for a new tool, DBOptimizer:

The DB Optimizer Early Adopters Program is an open invitation for anyone to download, install, and try Embarcadero's newest product offering. Download, install, and activate and you are eligible for 20% off your first purchase of DB Optimizer. Offer expires September 30, 2008.

Greg Keller has blogged about this new beta tool:

So reflect on the name: Database (DB) Optimizer. Voila. You got it. Optimizing databases as it relates to their performance. Making them run faster and more efficiently. How? Well, by providing the DBA or developer with tools in DBOptimizer to look deeply at two specific causes of ill performance:

• Bad SQL
• Atrocious wait times in the database.

So, to combat those two issues above, DBOptimizer is built on two core pieces of functionality: Sophisticated tuning of SQL and SQL Profiling for analyzing wait times and bottlenecks. It is, as developers in the Java and C++ camps had for time ad infinitum, a true profiler.

By Karen Lopez on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:28 AM

Glenn McDonald of www.furia.com has authored a cranky blog post about the terminology an approaches associated with "THE SEMANTIC WEB" (read that with a lot of echo effect).

1. "Semantic". By starting the name this way, you have essentially, avoidably, uselessly doomed the whole named enterprise before it starts. Most people don't have the slightest idea what this word even means, most of the people who do have an idea think it implies pointless distinctions, and everybody left after you eliminate those two groups will still have to argue about what "semantic" means. This is a rare actual example of begging the question. Or to put it in terms you will understand: congratulations, you've introduced terminological head recursion. Any wonder the program never gets around to doing anything? 

He has some good points here.  I'm not sure that the semantic world is so doomed as McDonald makes it, but his post is an interesting read. I especially enjoyed the dig at data modelers as well as the use of the term "semantic", since I have also seen many eyes roll at its mere mention. I also get a good chuckle out of hearing someone say to me "it's just semantics" when we are trying to nail down a business requirement related to order status or customer type....to which I usually reply, "Yes, it is".

By Karen Lopez on Friday, May 30, 2008 4:47 PM

If you've heard me present, then you know that one of my primary design mantras is:

Everything is a trade off.  You need to be able to explain, in both business and technical terms, the cost, benefits, and risks associated with every design decision.

If you can't do that, then you aren't doing design: you are copying design patterns from other designs and hoping for the best outcome, even if your current design has different requirements and risk tolerances.

I am often told that a database design must have surrogate keys on every table and that "right" way to implement surrogate keys is to use the Identity property in SQL Server (or the RowID in Oracle, or the Identity property in DB2).  These sorts of features of modern DBMSs do vary from vendor to vendor, so the cost, benefit, and risk associated with each varies by version and by vendor.  Most IT pros I speak with don't know that.

Many people I speak with assume, incorrectly, that Identity Property = Surrogate Key = Primary Key= Unique Index but this is incorrect. It is important for database designers to understand the differences between these concepts.

Nigel Rivett has written a great article over at Simple-talk.com about SQL Server's identity property and some of the interesting "features" of this incrementing function:

Note: An identity column is not guaranteed to be unique nor consecutive. You should always place a unique index on an identity column if your system requires uniqueness.

...

Note: The next value is the step added to the current seed; not one more than the max value in the table, or even the step from the last or maximum value.

I'm guessing that 6+ out of 10 of experienced SQL Server designers and developers are not clear on these two gotchas.  Other DBMSs have technical issues as well.  When I'm questioned on why I don't just slap on an identity property, call it a PK an move on to the next change request, I usually start asking questions:

1. Will the application need to assume that the values are always sequential?  What if the sequence is missing a few steps?  Will that break the code?
2. Will the Identity column value be displayed anywhere outside the database, such as on a report or on a screen?  Will the users be confused if a sequence is missing or if they "restart" in the middle of an order?
3. Will the Identity column value be used outside this database? How?  Where?
4. What are our plans for dealing with rows that exceed the maximum number of identity values (in some versions of DB2, identity values maxed out at 32k or so)?

Identity properties can be useful, but as in every design decision, there are uses that are appropriate and uses that are not -- it all comes down to cost, benefit, and risk.

By Karen Lopez on Friday, May 30, 2008 11:35 AM

Malcolm Chisholm has written an article for DM Review entitled "Is Data Modeling Sufficient for Database Design?"  However, I think a better title would have been "Working with Hidden Subtypes", as his comments on Codes Tables, Indicators, Nulls, and their dependence on other attributes really do focus on the complexities involved in making good data modeling style decision.

By now you get the picture. Certain attributes are only populated under certain circumstances. Traditionally, we have gotten around this need by creating subtypes in data models, thus spawning additional entities. Yet, in the above example we have four sets of supertypes and subtypes (Product Development Status, Product Category, Finish Type, and another for Finish Types of Gold and Oil Rubbed Bronze). It would be an absolute nightmare to try to model such a situation using subtyping, and anyone who did would certainly face a rebellion from the people charged with implementing it. Furthermore, traditional data modeling only permits one supertype and one set of subtypes per entity. It cannot deal with the various independent, overlapping and hierarchical natures of the subtypes we find even in the relatively simple situation shown in Figure 1. The only solution is to use code tables and indicators to deal with the problem in the context of a single Product entity.

Such a solution misses out on design. On the face of it, the Product entity on Figure 1 appears to say that every record in the physically implemented table will be uniform, in accordance with third normal form. In reality there are a number of subtypes hidden within the Product entity. These hidden subtypes are never formally identified, named or defined, let alone managed.

I'm not sure I agree that traditional data model allows only one set of subtypes per entity.  However, I have seen the rebellion he mentions if subtyping is used in the physical model.  Rebellion is a nice term for "revolt" in this case.

I use subtypes, but I have sometimes been forced to work with models that are overly subtyped to the point the models no longer provide the benefits that they are supposed to deliver.  My classic presentation story about this is a US Department of Defense data model I worked on that had some subtyping that went more than 25 levels deep.  It even said that a PERSON is a subtype of an AGREEMENT.  I don't know which world that inheritance existed in, but it did not reflect how I understood my world, nor did it reflect how most of our military users saw their world, either.  Sure, this was during the Reagan years and it was a project for the Strategic Defense Initiative, but still.....

Anyway, Chisholm has done a great job of showing how subtypes exist in our models whether or not we've chosen to use the subtype structure to represent them.  In fact, by not subtyping, we've chosen to hide them and move the subtyping rules to someplace outside our models.

By Karen Lopez on Friday, May 30, 2008 11:06 AM

One of the perks of speaking at DAMA meetings is the ability to hear what's going on in the trenches with real data architects -- those of you working day in and day out trying to squeeze even more business value out of your data models, process models, and other architectural components.

At a recent DAMA chapter event, I was discussing some of the ways I've dealt with a particular issue and the person I was speaking with said "I really wish we could have you come in for a few days and tell us how we could better collaborate with our developers".  When I said that this is what I do, the other person said that he didn't know that consultants were available for short term contracts.  He went on to explain that most of the consulting agencies his company deals with will not enter into engagements of less than 30-60 days and usually ask for 6 months to a year of commitments.  In speaking with others, I've found that the agency rule of pushing for long term assignments is common.

I guess that's the difference between getting consultants through agencies and dealing directly with independent professionals.  Sure, I've had long assignments (my longest contract ended up being seven years long), but we do quite a bit of work on shorter term, project-specific efforts. 

We even have clients who pay a small retainer and use increments as small as 30 minutes for a quick phone call on how to deal with a specific question. Some of our clients have us give yearly "Data Modeling for Non-modelers" training for new staff.  Some have us provide ad hoc commentary on their data models, especially those prepared by third parties under longer-term contracts.

My philosophy is that I want InfoAdvisors to be profitable based on quality of work, not quantity of billable hours.  There are places you can go to get a warm body to help out, with a great deal of supervision and client-provided training, but that's not us.  We aren't in that business.  In fact, our ability to work with shorter assignments is what allows us to do so much data management community volunteering and support.

You don't have to enter into some large, onerous long-term contract to have us help you meet your goals. 

By Karen Lopez on Friday, May 30, 2008 10:48 AM

Ever wonder what Microsoft means when they give someone the title of product Evangelist? Jeff Sandquist of Microsoft discusses the product evangelist role at Microsoft.

You dodged my question, so I’m asking again: How do you reconcile the line between evangelist and apologist?
You’re equating evangelism with cheerleading. Evangelism is not cheerleading. It’s not about raising your arms up and saying “This is awesome!” Evangelists know where the warts are —they know the strengths and the limitations. The right evangelist understands what competitors are doing better, and understand our strengths.

You win no one by bashing a competitors’ product. A great evangelist knows that their credibility is everything — otherwise they’re a shill. I don’t feel like I straddle the line with being an apologist, because I’m not a cheerleader — I’d never say something is what we all know it actually isn’t.

All vendors have product evangelists, even if they don't give them that title. For many vendors, this is a role played by the Product Manager, but for others, it can be a clued-in sales or marketing person's job.

I like this idea of product evangelist not being a "fanboy" role, not being a cheerleader, and no being a "there are no warts in this product" role.
Who are the ERwin, ER/Studio, PowderDesigner, Telelogic, Rational Data Architect, Visible Analyst evangelists you've met?