When ERwin support Barker notation?

Comments

1 comment

  • Avatar
    Jason Shangold

    Rich_Cohen
    Dec 11, 2014 5:16 PM
    First of all, there are two forms of Data Modeling - Logical and Physical. IE was originally created as a logical modeling tool. IDEF1X was created as a Physical (database design) tool. As a Physical tool IDEF1X is excellent. As a Logical tool it is (in my considerable and not so humble experience) terrible. IDEF1X is difficult for business people to interpret and it requires premature decisions regarding key propagation.

    I much prefer the Barker notation over IE for logical modeling and I prefer almost any but IDEF1X for logical modeling.

    Having said the above, I doubt ERwin will ever be modified to support the Barker notation. The graphic notation is too different. From the ERwin developer's perspective Barker is probably too much effort for too little value. ERwin started as a database designer's tool and IDEF1X was an excellent choice. The IE notation in ERwin is a thin veil over what is still an IDEF1X approach. ERwin's intent seems to be as a tool that can support the full life cycle from requirements to design to database generation to reengineering. Trying to use Barker for the requirements portion would probably require too much of a conceptual conversion when moving to design.

    90% of my work is logical data modeling. I leave physical modeling to the DBA's. However, I think I'm in the minority of ERwin users.

    • First of all, there are two forms of Data Modeling - Logical and Physical.  IE was originally created as a logical modeling tool.  IDEF1X was created as a Physical (database design) tool.  As a Physical tool IDEF1X is excellent.  As a Logical tool it is (in my considerable and not so humble experience) terrible.  IDEF1X is difficult for business people to interpret and it requires premature decisions regarding key propagation.

       

      I much prefer the Barker notation over IE for logical modeling and I prefer almost any but IDEF1X for logical modeling.

       

      Having said the above, I doubt ERwin will ever be modified to support the Barker notation.  The graphic notation is too different.  From the ERwin developer's perspective Barker is probably too much effort for too little value.   ERwin started as a database designer's tool and IDEF1X was an excellent choice.  The IE notation in ERwin is a thin veil over what is still an IDEF1X approach.  ERwin's intent seems to be as a tool that can support the full life cycle from requirements to design to database generation to reengineering.  Trying to use Barker for the requirements portion would probably require too much of a conceptual conversion when moving to design.

       

      90% of my work is logical data modeling.  I leave physical modeling to the DBA's.  However, I think I'm in the minority of ERwin users.

       

      I have voted in favor of your idea.  I'd love to have a Barker option in ERwin.  I just don't think I'll ever see one.

    • SteveR

      I think of Barker notation for conceptual modeling, which ERWin does not really support.  Two big variations would be the relationship lines could be half dotted/half solid (not just one or the other); and subtyping would be done by containership rather than lines.   I have not seen many recent Barker tools.   I tend to use Visio. 

    • mary.moon

      I agree with Rich.

       

      I'm voting for it even though I don't think CA will implement.

      I remember Bachman(later Cayenne) and one could switch between Barker, IE, IDEF1X with ease.

    • myilsooni

      Hi, All.

      Thans for opinion of my issue..

      Most case, I agree that

       

      But Barker notation is more easy to see and communicate with none-it member of customer.

      Most easy feature of Bakrer notation is can identify PK, Null/Not Null by default symbol like #, *, O.

      ERwin need to chagne Display level for Null option and if use this option then layout is changed or overrapped. 

      It means that it did not more aciton for attribute/column order against ERwin if attribute order same with physical orer(DB Order) , too.

      Especially, Box in Box for subtype is more easy to seperate and identify of entity types.

      And arc relationship is even neer to conceptual than loigcal but it is easy to explain more than IE, I think.

      Except Len Silverstones books also most of new modeling books are use Barkner notation.

      In Korea, it really all of new modeling books are use Barker notation and it means that we need check the reason why used Barker notation.

      Oracle Modeler was support Barker notation and some modelers are started by this notation.

      And theses modelers want use modeling tool what support Barker notation.

       

      I love IE than Barker,  too.

      But some people want to ERwin support Barker Notation and soem of comeptitive tools supoort Barker notation even Power Desinger.

      ERwin need concider for more easy of use and more include other modeler like that.

      I would like to CA concider this feature to ERwin.

       

      Thank you.

    • WCBCA

      100% agree with the comenters here that Barker is easier for a less technical audience to interpret.  It also helps stop the automatic mental translation from entities to tables that so often gums up logical and conceptual modeling. Upvoted - Come on, CA!

    • david.wieland

      ERwin's roots may be in physical database design, but there's no question that it's being used for more conceptual modelling as well. In my experience, simplified IE notation can be understood by non-technical people, but ERwin severely limits such simplification, insisting on including some cardinality even when I'm not ready to bring that into a data design discussion. So even though we might want to be able to develop our data models from conceptual to physical with a single tool, ERwin doesn't provide full support for this.

      Barker (Barker-Ellis) notation does offer a less "techie" approach to conceptual modelling and would be a welcome addition to the tool. I'll note that you can simulate the box-in-box Barker subtyping in ERwin, but that's limited too.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk