Differences between centralised and distributed Metadata Management Architecture

From MIKE2 Methodology

The pro/cons of hub vs. bus metadata architecture are quite similar to the pros/cons of a centralised vs. distributed data warehouse. Whereas network traffic and disk space are generally not major points of concern for metadata environment as a opposed to a centralised vs. de-centralised Data Warehouse, the concept of information being inherently distributed to an extent as its in all applications but a hub make is easier to access, is a similar concept for the DW or metadata environment.

Contents 1 Hub Metadata Architecture – Pros and Cons 1.1 Pros 1.2 Cons 2 Bus Metadata Architecture – Pros and Cons 2.1 Pros 2.2 Cons 3 Conclusion

Hub Metadata Architecture – Pros and Cons

Pros

• Provides a single interface between users and the information they need, making it easier to get to the information they need
• Integration requirements and querying is less complex
• Developing new business applications that use the metadata becomes simpler. Attempting to execute customer relationship management solutions, which requires knowledge of lifetime customer value, is difficult with distributed metadata environment.
• Consolidates metadata in one foundation, providing a "single version of the truth" that all users can access .
• In the centralised environment, the issue of scope, coordination, responsibilities, transfer of data, local mapping, and so on would be reasonably straight foreword.
• Managing development effort would be much easier for the metadata architect.
• In a simple centralised environment, roles and responsibilities are more straight-forward.

Cons

• The entry cost is typically higher as it will require more specific software
• Benefit of the metadata environment can’t be as easily proven throughout the corporation

Bus Metadata Architecture – Pros and Cons

Pros

• It’s quick to accomplish. Each local group has control over its design and resources.
• The entry cost may be less than with a centralized solution if a central hub product is not requi

Cons

• In the distributed environment, the issue of scope, coordination of responsibilities, transfer of data, local mapping, and so on, make the environment complex.
• Managing multiple development efforts on local sites would be reasonably difficult for the metadata architect.
• The different parts of the detailed level of the metadata solution are scattered across different technological platforms
• In a distributed environment, the roles and responsibilities may not be as not straight foreword.
• Coordinating development across distributed locations won’t be very effective. The local development groups never collectively move at the same pace.

Conclusion

In summary, building a bus architecture is typically be a more challenging task. In practice, metadata vendors provide persistent hub architectures. A bus architecture would have to be built entirely or with some sort of hybrid approach where a vendor metadata product formed part of a node. Federated approaches to data integration are becoming more popular, however, so this approach may also follow for metadata integration.