Re: Normalization and Derived Information

From: Tony <andrewst_at_onetel.com>
Date: 13 Oct 2004 02:05:56 -0700
Message-ID: <ed8a00fa.0410130105.2ffc8e2a_at_posting.google.com>


"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<UIednTgiwvcvd_bcRVn-jw_at_comcast.com>...
> A body of data that stores every fact once, and only once, is an auditor's
> nightmare. Because if, through error or fraud, somebody manages to store
> an incorrect fact in the database, and that incorrect fact damages one
> person and benefits another, there isn't any way (without stepping outside
> the database) to determine that the fact is incorrect.

Yes, I see what you mean. But surely the redundancy is only really more trustworthy if it comes from different sources? Merely recording the same fact (or derived fact) multiple times as part of the one transaction initiated by the one user shouldn't improve our confidence in it, should it? Or is the point that a malicious hacker modifying the data through the "back door" is likely to fail to change all copies, and hence expose the hack? Received on Wed Oct 13 2004 - 11:05:56 CEST

Original text of this message