Repository universe and reports

security Supervisor (4.x - 6.x)
1

It would definitely be nice to collaberate on an enhanced version of the
manager universe, unfortunately you will need to have a different version
for each different database platform that the repository can reside on such
as Oracle, Sybase, DB2, etc. This is also where the ManagerO name comes
from, in response to Dave Rathbun’s question. The last letter represents
the database platform, in this case Oracle. For the 3.1 version of
BusinessObjects, they had several different versions of the manager
universe for the different database platforms. However with the 4.x
release only the Oracle version was offered. I think this was mainly due
to other database platforms not having all the functions needed to pull
data from the tables properly, such as outer joins.

I have taken the ManagerO.unv and modified it for our platform which is
DB2/6000 version 5 on an AIX box. If anyone would like a copy let me know
and I can send it.

Glenn Fredericks
Data Warehouse Specialist
glenn_fredericks@aal.org
(920) 730-4700 x4236 or 1-800 CALL AAL

Aid Association for Lutherans
4321 N. Ballard Road
Appleton, WI 54919-0001
Visit our Web site at www.aal.org or e-mail us at aalmail@aal.org

AAL… Financial services. Lutheran heritage. A powerful combination.

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

2

In a message dated 99-03-10 15:20:12 EST, you write:

I have taken the ManagerO.unv and modified it for our platform which is
DB2/6000 version 5 on an AIX box. If anyone would like a copy let me know
and I can send it.

As always, Glenn, if you like to make it available on our web site, feel free
to email it to me and I will post it.

I’ve worked some on enhancing the ManagerO universe. Since some of the
database requirements are not easily portable, I was trying to create a basic,
informative universe that did not require any outer joins. I had three core
universes that I was going to create, corresponding to the three domain types.
That way if you have multiple document (or universe) domains you could copy
the universe, change the connection string, and be able to use the multi-data
provider feature of BusObj to do detailed reporting across all of your
domains.

Like other personal projects, this has fallen somewhere in the priority list
above flossing my teeth, but below being a vegatable in front of the
television. :slight_smile:

I think the idea is sound. I have also heard that the repository struction for
version 5.0 is very similar to that found in version 4, in fact, the existing
tables may exist without any changes. In the upgrade from 3.0 to 3.1 (again,
for the “old timers”) the only repository change was an additional column to
one table, and one brand new table. It appears (via rumor, I have not had the
opportunity to confirm this) that the version 5 upgrade may be similar.

Why is this important? Because if we (the list community) go forward with the
idea of building a database generic universe against the repository structure,
it would be nice to know that it would not be made obsolete by the upgrade.

If anyone can confirm or deny the rumor about the repository structure changes
for version 5, that would be great!

Regards,
Dave Rathbun
Integra Solutions
www.islink.com

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

3

For beta 5.0, the repository changes include 6 new tables and changes
to existing tables to take into account the new architecture for
Broadcast Server. Actually, some of the new tables will make it easier
to get document and data provider information (the same stats that are
available when view data provider information through end user module).
Can’t say if further changes will be made before final release.

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

4

From my perspective, with the vast amount of experience that we have with
the people on the list with different platforms, we should be able to
create modifications from one base universe. I think the first thing that
we should try to do if we want to collaberate is to come up with a standard
set of objects and classes. I’m sure there are people who have done
modifications on the ManagerO universe or created their own that have some
suggestions or ideas that have been, or would be useful for them. Once we
have that, then if different people can take that and try to map it back to
the major platforms. I’m sure that each platform will require it’s own
“tweeks” to make it work.

Well that’s my two cents worth.

Glenn Fredericks
Data Warehouse Specialist
glenn_fredericks@aal.org
(920) 730-4700 x4236 or 1-800 CALL AAL

Aid Association for Lutherans
4321 N. Ballard Road
Appleton, WI 54919-0001
Visit our Web site at www.aal.org or e-mail us at aalmail@aal.org

AAL… Financial services. Lutheran heritage. A powerful combination.

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

5

Glenn Fredericks wrote:

It would definitely be nice to collaberate on an enhanced version of the
manager universe, unfortunately you will need to have a different version
for each different database platform that the repository can reside on such
as Oracle, Sybase, DB2, etc.

We are on a Sybase platform, and I, for one would love to have a manager
universe that we could use!

Anita Craig

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

6

Well, the ball certainly seems to be rolling.

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 07:49:36 -0600

From: Glenn_Fredericks@AAL.ORG

From my perspective, with the vast amount of experience that we have with
the people on the list with different platforms, we should be able to
create modifications from one base universe. I think the first thing that
we should try to do if we want to collaberate is to come up with a standard
set of objects and classes.

I agree that’s most likely the best way to start… possibly the next thing
following that is to hammer out the schema; I know ‘ManagerO’ only went so
far and when we did our version, we put many more of the tables in place.

The only problem I can envisage is the ‘admin’ of this exercise… can
anyone think of an ‘area’ somewhere online that we can gather this material
together? perhaps we could publish the password of such an area on the list
so that everyone can watch and submit.

Glenn, in this case is a list of people & platforms a good idea?

We are on a Sybase platform, and I, for one would love to have a manager
universe that we could use!

Anita Craig

I’ll put my hands up to INGRES.

Cheers all! ;O)

Phil Morris

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

7

I have created Designer and Security universes for DB2/MVS as well as a set
of reports. They are still a “work in progress” but I’d be willing to share
what I have.

Barbara Rosen

Database Development & Admin Services
Salomon Smith Barney
Phone: (212) 723-2756
e-mail: barbara.rosen@ssmb.com

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

8

In a message dated 99-03-12 05:25:28 EST, you write:

The only problem I can envisage is the ‘admin’ of this exercise… can
anyone think of an ‘area’ somewhere online that we can gather this material
together? perhaps we could publish the password of such an area on the list
so that everyone can watch and submit.

I can make our web site available for distributing any final works. In fact, I
have already received Glenn Fredericks’ version of the DB2 universe, which
will be posted on our site later this week. As soon as I do, I will email a
note to the list.

At the moment, however, we don’t have anything on our web server to manage an
ongoing discussion (message board software). We don’t have ftp access set up
either, due to security concerns. I do have some space available via my
America Online account that is eventually going to be dedicated to my personal
web site, but for now I have 2 meg of space that we can use for storing
uploaded material.

I don’t know if we want to use this list for an ongoing discussion of the
development effort. The traffic could be high, and other people on the list
that are not actively participating in the development may only be interested
in the announcement that a final product is available.

Either way, I might be able to help coordinate such an effort. But only with
the understanding that the final product would be public domain, and not
“owned” by any individual or company.

A few ideas:
I have considered creating a true generic universe. One with no outer joins,
and with no specific database functions like Decode() or charindex() or
whatever. I realize that many of the report requirements require outer joins,
so…

Along with the universe would be a set of documents (reports) built on that
universe. As you know, BusObj does an outer join when combining two (or more)
data providers. It might be possible to get the proper reports using just the
BusObj reporting tool. Or perhaps some use of the scripting language to
process data prior to reporting on would work.

The objective would be to create a repository documentation system that anyone
can use “out of the box”, without any modifications other than to set up
appropriate database connections.

Another idea would be to create an Access database that mimics the Repository
structure. A universe to access this stand-alone database would then be built.
Individual sites would be responsible for migrating their data into the Access
database, either on a one-time or an on-going basis. Reports would no longer
be “real time”, but the universe would be the same for everyone.

Access supports “attached tables”, so it would be possible to attach remote
(repository) tables directly if real time data was a requirement.

Unfortunately, these ideas are as far as I have gone so far. No actual work
has been done on either.

Ideas? Comments? Suggestions?

Regards,
Dave Rathbun
Integra Solutions
www.islink.com

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

9

Dave,
Also thanks for offereing up resources for this effort. All good
ideas if we can get a generic universe built, I have my doubts but would
loveto be proven wrong. My only concern about going the Access route would
be forcing a site to have Access in order to use the this. I would also
agree with Phil Morris in that we could prefix our messages with MANGERX
etc to let people know they could skip if they wanted to or not. If the
list community or the list owner is not responsive to this they we can seek
an alternative method.
I think we need some concensus on the method we want to use. If we go
the generic route I think that we will need to get the structure and
functionality of that figured our first before trying to tackle what
classes & objeccts will be in the universe.

HINT TO BUSINESSOBJECTS: I know you already have some basic reporting
available in Designer but it doesn’t go for enough for most people, not
adhoc enough. Since you have a wonderful adhoc reporting tool at your
disposal and a known datasource, it would seems like a natural benefit that
you could offer your customers. Especially since you can react faster to
repository changes then we could.

Glenn Fredericks
Data Warehouse Specialist
glenn_fredericks@aal.org
(920) 730-4700 x4236 or 1-800 CALL AAL

Aid Association for Lutherans
4321 N. Ballard Road
Appleton, WI 54919-0001
Visit our Web site at www.aal.org or e-mail us at aalmail@aal.org

AAL… Financial services. Lutheran heritage. A powerful combination.

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

10

Group,

This perspective is mine and does not reflect any opinions, policies or
philosophies of Business Objects.

It is my opinion that the details of the repository are part of what gives
us a ‘competitive edge’ in this market. To suggest that we create something
to glean all of the information from the repository could compromise our
leadership position in the BI market. As a former user, I recognize that
much of this information is valuable for many reasons, and perhaps in future
versions the decision will be made to make more of the information less
difficult to access.

This is not intended to be a political position (sure sound like it though),
but just my perspective.

Thanks

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

11

In a message dated 99-03-16 08:59:49 EST, Charles wrote:

It is my opinion that the details of the repository are part of what gives
us a ‘competitive edge’ in this market. To suggest that we create
something
to glean all of the information from the repository could compromise our
leadership position in the BI market. As a former user, I recognize that
much of this information is valuable for many reasons, and perhaps in
future
versions the decision will be made to make more of the information less
difficult to access.

This is not intended to be a political position (sure sound like it
though),
but just my perspective.

If keeping the repository internals private was truly an issue, then I don’t
think they would have published the repository table structures and
documentation (such that it is) on the web or on the distribution cd-roms. In
any case, once the decision was made to use a relational database (open
technology) rather than a proprietary file format (closed technology) to store
the repository information, the developers had to assume that people would
tinker with it.

I think that Glenn’s comment about providing additional reporting has merit.
Especially since if the tool (supervisor, or whichever) did have adequate
reporting in it then we would not even be talking about this project! And
nobody would have to get in to the repository internals to begin with.

In the earlier versions of BusObj the repository was very basic, so BusObj was
able to provide everyone with the Manager? universe for reporting. There were
also a lot of limitations that have been overcome in the upgrade to version 4.
Anybody remember tricks used to get around the limit of 400 characters for an
object definition? That is no longer a problem.

But basic questions like “Who will I affect by changing this universe?” used
to be fairly simple to answer (using the original Manager? universe). Now, you
can’t get that information from the Supervisor application, and it’s very
difficult to get the results out of the repository via SQL. Yet the tool
obviously knows if I have access to a universe, otherwise it would not be able
to provide a valid list when I log on. So why not provide that same list in a
built-in (tool provided) report?

This is not meant to be an “offensive” post, or the start of an attack on
BusObj in any way. I essentially make my living by working with (and helping
others work with) the tool, so I am not about to “bite the hand that feeds me”
(my apologies to those for whom English is not a primary language; I hope that
translates okay). But I do think that there are some basic things that could
be in the product that aren’t. And, since we do have access to the
information, we can take steps to improve our usage of the product.

That’s what I think the list-serve community is all about. Sharing, helping,
improving.

Regards,
Dave Rathbun
Integra Solutions
www.islink.com

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)

12

X-cc: “Hurst, Erich” Erich.Hurst@COMPAQ.COM

I’d agree completely with Erich here. The competitive advantage you have is
in how BusObj uses the repository ie the way data is stored, the inner
workings, the ‘technology’ etc behind the tool. The fact that BusObj
provides documentation on the s/w CDs about what the tables are and what’s
stored in them gives away more than a universe built on the repository ever
could. Except for the original installers or DBAs most people who use
BusObj never get close to the actual database tables so providing a decent
universe for the main repository databases gives exactly what the product is
aimed at providing, i.e. “a end-user view of the physical database
structure” etc. Apart from occasionally having to modify values in the
repository directly I have no real interest in the tables or how the data is
stored BUT I do need to be able to document my universes and setup which I
can only do properly with a universe built on the repository.

Regards

Jonathan

Project Leader
Management and Commercial Systems
Global Medical, Regulatory and Product Strategy (GMRPS) IS

Listserv Archives (BOB member since 2002-06-25)