Blog Views
Categories
Reviews by Content
Archives
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (3)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (5)
- August 2011 (26)
- July 2011 (6)
- June 2011 (8)
- May 2011 (6)
- April 2011 (9)
- March 2011 (6)
- February 2011 (7)
- January 2011 (6)
- December 2010 (5)
- November 2010 (22)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (4)
- July 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (4)
- May 2010 (3)
- April 2010 (1)
- March 2010 (1)
- February 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (4)
- December 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (1)
- November 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (2)
- June 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (1)
- July 2007 (2)
- June 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (4)
- March 2007 (1)
- October 2006 (2)
- June 2006 (1)
- May 2006 (2)
- March 2006 (1)
- January 2006 (3)
- August 2005 (5)
- July 2005 (5)
- June 2005 (5)
- May 2005 (6)
- March 2005 (9)
- February 2005 (5)
- September 2004 (2)
- June 2004 (1)
- May 2004 (2)
- April 2004 (1)
- March 2004 (2)
- December 2003 (1)
- September 2003 (1)
- August 2003 (2)
- July 2003 (4)
- June 2003 (1)
- April 2003 (2)
- March 2003 (2)
- July 2002 (1)
- June 2002 (2)
- April 2002 (9)
- January 2002 (1)
- September 2001 (1)
Monthly Archives: August 2005
Modelling Data Mapping – A Challenge
Almost all integration projects contain one or more transformations (sometimes called “mappings”) between two different structures holding equivalent data (for example the order tables in the database, and the order XML message). We know how to model the individual static data structures in various ways, but the most common approach is to represent each by a UML class model, and there are established conventions for how to do this for different data sources.
However, UML doesn’t help when it comes to the transformations themselves, and typically the detail has to be captured either in code, or a proprietary format. Most good integration tools provide some sort of “visual mapping tool”, where the developer drags and drops to create links between representations of the two structures, usually imported directly from their physical schemas. Here’s an example using SeeBeyond. Altova provide a good stand-alone data mapping tool called Mapforce – here’s an example showing it in use. The problem is that these tools work directly with the physical structure, and don’t export the mapping information in a reusable format, so that information is completely disconnected from the UML analysis or design models.
I have experimented with trying to represent mapping information in a UML model, but so far without much success. The best solution I’ve found so far is to use some sort of “pseudo code” (it could be OCL, pseudo-Java, pseudo-VB or anything similar). For example, we could easily annotate the model with code fragments such as:
Database.order_table.order_no = Message.Header.OrderNo
(where each element refers to a UML Package.Class.Attribute combination).
The problems are that it’s not clear where to put this annotation, most UML modelling tools won’t help generate it, and there’s no graphical representation. Ultimately, writing pseudo-code like this is probably not much better than abandoning the model and moving straight to using your integration tool.
My question is: does anybody know a better way? Has anybody found a good way of representing mapping information in UML? And if so, is there any good tool support?
If you know, please send me a message.
Review – A Short History of Nearly Everything
I’ve just posted my review of Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everthing”. I found it an excellent holiday read, athough a general science book with almost no illustrations or equations took a bit of getting used to. For more, please read my full review.
Posted in Reviews, Thoughts on the World
Leave a comment
Review: A Short History of Nearly Everything
By Bill Bryson
Science for the verbally-minded
|
This is a remarkable book in two ways. It’s a very clear, comprehensive summary and explanation of our current understanding across a wide range of scientific subjects. It’s also the only science book I’ve ever read with almost no illustrations or equations. In his introduction Bryson complains that he could not get interested in science at school because all the text books were dull. Admittedly I’m a few years younger, which might make a difference, but I was exposed from an early age to a vast array of well-written and beautifully-illustrated books on a range of science subjects. The conclusion is simple: unlike most who get interested in science, Bill Bryson is one of those people whose thinking is almost entirely verbal in nature, and he’s written a book for those of the same persuasion. And he’s done a very good job of it. |
Metropolis – Where Do You Want To Live Today?
There’s been a lot of talk in recent years about a “city planning” metaphor for Enterprise Architecture development. Pat Helland’s article “Metropolis” in the Microsoft Architecture Journal is a very good example (see my post on this for some key quotes).
While the metaphor might still be valid, some people are beginning to question how far it should be taken. Helland’s article, like others before it, implies that “good” EA looks rather like a medium-sized modern American town, complete with relatively standard services, civic buildings and commercial venues. In an answer to the original “Metropolis” article Richard Veryard and Philip Boxer have published “Metropolis and SOA Governance” which challenges several of Helland’s assumptions.
I think that maybe we should extend the metaphor by thinking about cities, or Enterprise Architectures, as very diverse entities. What sort of “city” do you live in? To what extent is it planned? What is the vision, and do the citizens share in it? Does the EA resemble a nice neat midwest town, a dark, brooding Gotham City, a glass and steel Utopia, a federation of small towns with lots of empty space between them, a medieaval walled town, or a wartime mid-european ghetto?
And the metaphor can be taken further. Do you want to promote “infill development”, closing up functional gaps, or do you want to keep clear separation between the various zones? Do you want the shared services to be clearly visible, as they are in modern, purpose-built towns or hidden beneath a facade which looks much older or simpler? Do you expect to eventually knock down and rebuild older “legacy” zones, or do you want to preserve them with the minimum of change (a common requirement for our valuable historic buildings)? Do you want to accomodate the small hardware shop (read small the bespoke system) as well as the new DIY superstore (the ERP package)?
Finally, remember that it is extremely rare for a city to be truly planned and designed from scratch. You usually start with something established. Even if the city has been flattened by a bomb, you’ll have to observe land rights (this is what stopped Christopher Wren and Charles II realising their grand design after the Fire of London). This is equally true of Enterprise Architectures.
The city planning metaphor is a powerful one, but its true power may come if we use it to explore problems as well as utopian ideals.
My Favourite Films – An Exercise in Over-Analysis
A bit of a change from my more serious posts, but maybe a useful lesson in analysis, here’s the sorry tale of just how complicated I managed to make listing my top ten favourtite films. I hope it gives you a giggle.





