Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Resource Ownership

Re: Resource Ownership

From: Nonkel Sue <nonkelsue_at_pandora.be>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 09:46:18 GMT
Message-ID: <3CE7747D.5D96A182@pandora.be>


Tobin Harris wrote:

> I like the following changes:
>
> - Consistant naming of entities (no mixing of spaces/no spaces)
> - Consistant naming of columns
> - Connector lines not overlapping

Can you be more specific on this issue ? I can't see any of these in the last model I made.  

> 1. No optional relationships
> For example, I
> would have thought that an Employee could exist without a Request, however
> the diagram indicates that they must have one or more requests.

So you mean that the relationship between Employee and Request should be drawn like this [(0,n) instead of (1,n) ?] :

Entity ---O|----< Request  

> 2. Surrogate Keys
> I notice you've gone with the surrogate key approach - where every table has
> a surrogate key.

8< 8<

I did this for simplicity reasons. The old version had all keys shown, which made it IMHO look more to a physical model then to a conceptual model.  

> 3. Naming Considerations
> - Rename "Status" to "Request Status". If you need to introduce other
> statuses (Login Status, for example), then you've already got a consistent
> convention.

OK. Sounds indeed more correct.  

> - Rename "Right" to "Resource Privilege". Similarly, "Applicatoin Role
> Right" would become "Application Role Privilege". Bit of a biggy this
> becasue you'd have to rename other entities also, so don't worry about it
> too much.

This will have a too big implication on all other things I wrote up till now. In the document I'm writing, I'm talking about Rights on Resources, so changing Rights to Privileges would mean that I have to review the complete document and all other stuff I wrote up till now. I'd rather like to keep it like it is now...

> Ok, that's it for now. I'll see if I can look at some more later.

In the mean time, I also got more information from Doug. I already made a new, simplified model out of the information he gave me. But it's not yet a model that could replace the latest upload. I'm still missing a few things; I'm waiting to receive an answer on the question I send to him on this.

Anyone more suggestions ?

-- 
br,

Nonkel Sue - [nonkelsue_at_pandora.be]
*****************************************************************
"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
*****************************************************************
Received on Sun May 19 2002 - 04:46:18 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US