Naming Standards Compliance



  • Avatar
    Tim Woolford-Smith

    Hi Steven

    I support this idea wholeheartedly.

    I have tried many times over the years to get Prime, Modifier1, Modifier2 and Class to do anything.  Finally, about 10 months ago, I raised a ticket.

    Here is the reply:



    This is in reference to the use of Word Classification as Prime, Class and/or Modifiers.  I am working on this with Kauriya and am responding on his behalf.

    It seems that there is some confusion regarding the use of these Classifications.  The only purpose of these settings is to ensure that the naming convention follow the standards as set in the Glossary.  The implementation is for documentation only and this is not used during Complete Compare.  This is how it is supposed to be working:

    1. You populate the Glossary and mark the word(s) as either/or Prime, Class Modifier1, Modifier2.

    2. You add the names for Entities and Attributes or Tables and Columns.

    3. Under Tools | Standards | Check Naming Standard Compliance you can run a report to see which names are compliant with the classification and which ones are not.

    So, to summarize, the purpose of this to set the standards and check them but it does not prevent one to create a name that violates it.Since this cannot be set via Complete Compare (CC), it does not appear in the CC options.  Hope it clarifies.  Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with this.


    Bob Sethi

    CA Technologies - Technical Support



    I therefore think this is of little use.

    Instead, I enforce Class Word compliance through macro code in the translate from Attribute to Column names.  The last word in the name MUST be one of the Class words and is automatically translated into a Class abbreviation from a very restricted set of the abbreviations, using UDPs built on Domains that get inherited when you use the domain to define the attribute.  I have approximately 40 domains.  They set the Logical Class Word, Attribute datatype, Nullability and Default values and validation rules.  Then I use scripts to generate the DDL that makes intelligent use of these UDPs and builds fantastic DDL based upon the target database technology.

    I also set standards for Case of names.

    Logical are always Initial.

    Physical are always None.

    Then I force all names to lower by using %Lower() and translate to UPPER case abbreviations using Match Whole Word.

    Anything not matched remains lower case and is easily checked using a script.

    Of course this works for me, but by judicious manipulation you could enforce all lowercase physical names as well.


    Tim Woolford-Smith

    Hope this helps.

    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar

    Hi, Tim! Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post on the ERwin Idea Wall. I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in expecting more than the current functionality, and hopeful that others will voice their support. I believe that ERwin gives consideration to enhancement requests based on the number of "Yes" votes received. Will you please add your vote to my original post?

    Kind regards,

    Steve Jorgensen

    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk