Talk:Data model

Text about W3C, RDF and OWL removed

I removed the following text, see here, which was added both here and in the data modeling by User:EddyVanderlinden:

The end of the 1990 provided W3C standards (ref : Standards on RDF [1] and recommendations on OWL [2]) which enabled ontologies to unite 4 modelling functions in 1 knowledge model: the knowledge representation (in RDF(S) and OWL), the knowledge generation through inferences, the conceptual model through ontologies and the physical model through triple stores.

The latest developments allow to generate applications straight from the knowledge systems (ontologies) (ref : See the finance semantic web application [3]).

I removed this text about W3C, RDF, OWL because it doesn't explain much itself, and doesn't explain the link with data modeling. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration

• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the data modeling article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Generic data model article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the database model, flat file database, hierarchical model, network model, relational model, entity-relationship model, object-relational model, and object model article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Information model article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the semantic data model article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Unified Modeling Language article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the enterprise modeling article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Data Architecture article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the data structure diagram article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the data flow diagram article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the entity-relationship model article.
• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Object Role Modeling article.

-- Mdd (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I have undone the change in the lead sentence for the simple reason that it was not wikified. In a high-frequently viewed article like this it should be. Now I don't appose to a change in the lead sentence but it does have to fit the Wikipedia rules about lay out. Now the current article states:

A data model in software engineering is an abstract model that describes how data are represented and accessed. Data models formally define data elements and relationships among data elements for a domain of interest.

Now a new lead sentence is proposed by user:63.117.201.120:

Data is the documentation of real world entities (a person, place or thing), on a specific date. A data model is a plan that is used to document data with rigor. The data model is then used to specify how to store and retrieve the data from the appropriate place. A favorite saying of data architects is "a place for everything and everything in its place".

Now one of the rules is that the article has to start with the subject. So it could become:

A data model is a plan that is used to document data with rigor. The data model is then used to specify how to store and retrieve the data from the appropriate place. A favorite saying of data architects is "a place for everything and everything in its place".

Now for me as a not-native American I don't know what the expression "to document data with rigor" means? -- Mdd (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall Impressions in 2018

I've just been revisiting this article after several years' absence. A surprising lack of recent talk?

The article starts reasonably well: sections 1, 2, 3 seem to provide a reasonably logical and consistent exposition.

After that it completely falls apart. Sections 4 and 5 are an absolute rag-bag. There's a whole sequence of 20 or so 3-or-4 paragraph sections each of which makes reasonable sense on its own, but none of which seem to fit into any coherent narrative for the article as a whole. Frankly, the article would be better without them.

Mhkay (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Some candidate data models to include

I'm not sure whether these really constitute alternative data models or whether they can be understood to be subsumed by some already listed.

• Frame
• Category Theory

BookLubber (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)