Re: Field naming: Same name represents different data

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:39:40 -0500
Message-ID: <9yT6a.358$P%4.54617137_at_mantis.golden.net>


"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:b3fdpu$159g$1_at_sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:XDt6a.299$xQ1.43889802_at_mantis.golden.net...
> > Why would it be bad practice to use the user's preferred terminology?
>
> Because users preferred terminology is usually ad-hoc, ill conceived and
> generally preferred by only one or a handful of users and not the user
> community as a whole. ;-)

That's why we have views. It doesn't make a good argument for confusing users, though.

> But on the point itself. The FD
>
> Attribute Name -> Domain Name
>
> is a nice reducer of redundancy in a database (and in it's use) . I can't
> think of a theoretical justification for mandating it however.

Within the scope of a relation, the FD holds. Within the scope of a database? I see no reason to require it. Received on Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:39:40 CET

Original text of this message