For example, the elements in Table 1 can be
used to describe a table asset.
While meta-models vary from implementation to implementation, we can categorize them
into four distinct models: closed models, standards-based models, functional, or industrybased
models.
Just about every tool out there has an underlying physical meta-model that requires a proprietary
model for integration. These meta-models are designed to work with the specific
tool. Logical or UML models for these tools are much harder to acquire. The real question
is, can the model be described as open, extensible, and open to metadata interchange? Closed
models, or proprietary models, are built based on the individual application requirements,
without consideration of standard models. These models are driven by the technical and
business requirements that deliver a flavor of uniqueness into the metadata strategy. These
models provide the basic utility required by the structural metadata. There has been a lot of
research focused on trying to create a standards-based meta-model. ISO 11179, common
warehouse model (CWM), and metadata object facility (MOF) are all efforts at creating metamodels
that allow meta-exchange through a collection of standards.
Pages:
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131