Open Framework, Information Management Strategy & Collaborative Governance | Data & Social Methodology - MIKE2.0 Methodology
Wiki Home
Collapse Expand Close

Members
Collapse Expand Close

To join, please contact us.

Improve MIKE 2.0
Collapse Expand Close
Need somewhere to start? How about the most wanted pages; or the pages we know need more work; or even the stub that somebody else has started, but hasn't been able to finish. Or create a ticket for any issues you have found.

Differences between centralised and distributed Metadata Management Architecture

From MIKE2.0 Methodology

Share/Save/Bookmark
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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 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.

Wiki Contributors
Collapse Expand Close

View more contributors