Skip to Content
May 28, 2014 at 07:34 PM

It verifies... but is it correct?


I've been working on modeling all of the systems in our landscape for some time. I think I've read everything Wolf Hengevoss has written, and I think I have a decent handle on it now, but questions still remain. For example, for our BI system, I had to manually add BI Java and Portal Content Common from EHP5 for SAP ERP 6.0 to my BI JAVA Technical system prior to the modeling in order to get everything to verify correctly at the end. Since we don't have those installed on the system yet, my guess is that once I run a maintenance transaction on this system and those things are installed, that I can blow away the existing models/technical systems and at that point reimport from the SLD and everything will show up as automatic. I'd rather not have any manual entries in LMDB if I can help it.

After working on this for a while, my understanding is that any software component that is "business" related (BI JAVA, Portal content) gets associated with the Product System which inherits it's name from the ABAP stack. The Product System which inherits it's name from the JAVA stack only "owns" the base technology software components (like application server java, Portal, and Portal Core). This is very clear when you are modeling a hub system (e.g. ECC-Portal-SRM). It's less clear to me when modeling BI. Should there perhaps only be 1 Product System instead of 2?

I think the model described in this document is supported and would allow for migration to a hub based usage of the BI JAVA stack should that ever been necessary. It does completely verify, but is it correct?

Any and all thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated!!

Here are the screenshots of the Product Systems and related systems in their final state.

ABAP-related Product System NB1

JAVA-related Product System NBJ

ABAP-related Product System NB1 - Related Product Systems view

Best regards,



PS-NB1.png (72.0 kB)
PS-NBJ.PNG (67.0 kB)
PS-NB1_related.PNG (74.0 kB)