Hello all, in diving into some of the working details of the various interfaces for working with HANA data, I have a question and just wondering if anyone has had to make this decision yet. It's coming more from a governance/usability angle.
Essentially, the question comes down to where some of the semantic naming for columns comes into play. In HANA modeling, we have the option to rename the columns in views differently than they exist in the base tables - Material_Number vs. MATNR, Posting_Date vs. BUDAT for example. The clear advantage to this approach would be that the tools that connect directly to HDB (Analysis, Explorer, Lumira, Predictive) would have more semantically rich/user friendly column definitions vs. the SAP column names. However, now we may lose some of the inherent traceability for base table to view mapping.
Typically, what I have seen in BO in the past is that the Universe is leveraged to handle all of the semantic/business renaming of the fields for use in Webi/Dashboard/Explorer. Now we have toolsets that will be consuming HANA data through both channels (direct/universe), so I assume that it would be best to tackle the business/semantic definitions at the lowest level possible, which would be the HANA views in this case.
Any insight from anyone that has used Analysis, Explorer, Lumira/PA and chose to keep SAP names vs. renaming in the models/views themselves?
Thanks,
Justin