Comments for ProAce

Comment on Communicating Domain Models with Object-Role Modeling by modeling

modeling — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:36:03 +0000

i see you blog this is nice.Ihave been actively using Object-Role modelling for several yearsnow, and I greatly enjoy how expressive it can be. modelingIt is a wonderful communication tool.

Comment on Communicating Domain Models with Object-Role Modeling by Orion Bühler

Orion Bühler — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:22:18 +0000

Thank you for posting this presentation!

Ihave been actively using Object-Role modelling for several yearsnow, and I greatly enjoy how expressive it can be. It is a wonderful communication tool.

Sadly, I have yet to participate in a project that starts by building the understanding one gets from ORM. For me, it has always been a project that I come into that is already underway, with a mess of a model. I translate what I think I understand from the model into ORM, which can be easily verified with business folk.

The result of this is that I end up with a lovely ORM diagram that helps in communication, but doesn’t get as much usage as it could. It is a little like looking at a map of the zoo after you’ve left it for the day.

Hopefully, I and others can help this wonderful tool gain greater traction in the world!

Comment on ORM Basics: Entities, Values, Roles, and Facts by jarnold

jarnold — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:37:25 +0000

@John

There’s a lot of talk in this particular area (modeling processes) and the role that ORM can play. I know that there was some talk about extending the BPMN spec to support the inclusion of or references to ORM models. However, I don’t think that’s going to make it passed the idea phase.

Check out the ORM foundation (http://ormfoundation.org) for some more information on this one. I know people have been talking about it for a while now.

Comment on National Oilwell Varco by chadpavliska.com » Blog Archive » Object Role Modeling at ADNUG

chadpavliska.com » Blog Archive » Object Role Modeling at ADNUG — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:10:15 +0000

[...] Miller over at Dovetail software here in town). If you are one of my coworkers, go check out this case study… as I think it hits close to [...]

Comment on Speaking at the Austin .NET User Group by Chad Pavliska

Chad Pavliska — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:21:38 +0000

Thanks for the enlightening presentation tonight. I’ll definitely take a second look at ORM for my toolkit.

Comment on ORM Basics: Entities, Values, Roles, and Facts by John

John — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:43:14 +0000

Seems reasonable.
By the way is ORM meant for static or dynamic modeling? In some cases I have heard also term hybrid modeling – object system is perceived as consisting of discrete actors (or objects) each of which reacts to stimuli and has a limited view of system environment.
Can we still use ORM for modeling processes? I know that the focus of ORM conceptual modeling is towards data, since it is more stable.

Comment on ORM Basics: Entities, Values, Roles, and Facts by jarnold

jarnold — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:55:34 +0000

@John,

We must first make the distinction between Domain-Driven Design terminology and Object-Role Modeling terminology. While there are parallels between both, this is one where the differences are quite vast.

Object Types are broken down into two types: 1) Entity and 2) Value. For sake of simplicity these are modeled with solid lines and dotted lines, respectively.

Entity types must have reference modes while Value types cannot have them. More simplistic examples of this use single values to identify Entities (i.e., surrogate identifiers) while more complicated usages include “composite identification” (much like a composite primary-key in a database).

As a side note, composite entities are ideal for modeling Value objects in the Domain-Driven Design world.

Comment on ORM Basics: Entities, Values, Roles, and Facts by Jarrod Peace

Jarrod Peace — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:27:12 +0000

Good point, John. The distinction between objects and types in my mind is that types are the diagram components modeling a given object. Likewise with facts vs. fact types. So when we have a Customer object in our domain (an entity object), we can model it via an entity type in our ORM diagram. Of course, this is not a very rigorous definition and in fact I’m sometimes using the terms interchangeably in this article.

Comment on ORM Basics: Entities, Values, Roles, and Facts by John

John — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:06:22 +0000

OK this was clear. Object coult be entity or value.
But how about terms “value object” and “entity object”? It seems to mee that in some cases they are used same way as value type ja entity type.
And offcoures fact vs fact type?

Comment on Unique Constraints on Nullable Columns in SQL Server 2008 by Nullable Unique Columns in SQL Server 2008 — Michael Weinand

Nullable Unique Columns in SQL Server 2008 — Michael Weinand — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:38:27 +0000

[...] rest of this post can be found over at the ProAce Development Blog. I’ll be doing more writing there from now on but I’ll occasionally link over to [...]