Category Archives: Customer Scenarios

Schema significance in the Physical model and implementation model

We would like to discuss few issues that customer faces and understanding of those issues while importing Metadata.
 
Importing metadata into the infosphere from Erwin 
 
When a Physical model is imported  and a equivalent  implementation model is generated,  the physical model is made analogous to Schema and all the underlying Tables in the Physical Models map to the  Tables in implementation model and a relation is established namely “ImplementedBy”.  So it is essential to have the schema  for all the tables. But how much are they going to play a role in the lineage is limited.
 
Tools like ERWin and ERStudio do support  creation of tables which have a different owners. Ie valid in case of a view created from different users and those models are re-engineered to Physical model. 
 
Lets take an example where a physical model ( PhysicalM) has 3 tables and out of which one table has Schema1 as a owner,  for another table Schema2,  and the third has PhysicalM as owner. So when the Physical model is imported, 3 schemas should be created each one has one table attached to it as per the design. But how much do they contribute  is limited. We could  make all the tables be under the PhysicalM model and have all the relationships established. If one wants to see what is actual in the re-engineered model  from the original implementation. So it is up to the user  whether user wants to preserve the actual implementation or not.