Dear All,
In our data , we have two descriptive entities (satellites )depending on one main entity(hub) .
One of these satellites is dependent on another.
There are two ways to model this satellite in data vault -
Hey CM,
You will be able to join both of those satellites straight to your entity hub.
Could you give some more detail about what you mean by:
One of these satellites is dependent on another.
All the best,
Frankie
No such dependency should exist in a standard Data Vault 2.0 architecture to my knowledge.
Thanks @Frankie for the response .
To provide more details , we have an entity sat1(satellite) connected to another entity(satellite) sat2. sat1 has generic details , while sat2 has details more particular to sat1. The attributes in sat2 are optional ,while those in sat1 will be always applicable. Hence the separation is needed . Additionally I think it makes sense to attach this sat2 to the hub and not to sat1 and use business mart to join sat1 and sat2 together .
Hey CM,
I’d like to try and correct your thinking that could impact your vault in the future. Satellite tables shouldn’t be treated as entities relating to one another. That’s what hubs and links are for. Satellites only describe the entity (hub) or relationship (link) and store the history.
So when you say that sat2 has details more particular to sat1 I’m hearing that they both just describe the hub entity on different levels of detail.
Trust me if you try and make your data vault look like a snowflake schema you’re likely going to end up with the worst of both worlds.
Business marts are definitely a good idea for end users not famiiliar with DV2. After all, most engineers are not familiar with it let alone end users 
All the best,
Frankie