Re: ER Diagrams

[Andrew S Halper <ashalper cox net>]

On 2003.04.08 18:24 Carol Farlow Lerche wrote:

> some of the previous posts have been a bit strong.  Executive summary
> of this post: it would be useful if dia/tedia2sql supported the
> variants of ER notation known as crow's foot and IDEF1X as well as UML
> notation, because conceptual data models in these notations have been
> found by some to be easier to convey to the business stakeholders than
> ones using UML class notation.

IDEF1X is in the works.  IE is my second priority.

> I would not say that UML has eliminated the use of ER diagrams, as was
> stated in a prior post, although there is certainly a faction that
> holds that UML diagramming is the only thing worth using.  UML is
> recognized even by its proponents as being more complex and harder to
> use for communication to the non-technical members of a project.  This
> is a religious war.  I would prefer to say that both are useful,
> instead of instigating a battle of words.  You can translate ER
> diagrams directly into UML diagrams, and there are some things that
> can't be represented in an ER diagram that are representable in UML.
> ER diagrams can be used for conceptual, logical, and physical
> modelling.  I use them for all three, but the commercial
> tools don't do a good job of transitioning from conceptual to logical
> to physical.

Agreed.  We've had this discussion before (you subscribed?) although it was not stated as eloquently the first time around.  Speaking for myself, in the context of Dia, I haved used UML for ER diagrams because currently it's the best thing Dia has to do ER.

Andy