Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:18:46 -0400
Message-ID: <lPGdneIrXNEeD-fcRVn-1Q_at_comcast.com>


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:cldvjl$hj9$1_at_news.netins.net...

> On these two points I am in complete agreement. It sounds like Laconic2
is
> there too (at least on 1NF).

I am with you as far as terminology is concerned. Not necessarily as far as the value of concepts is concerned.

I did go through a brief period when I tried to talk to non technical people in terms of tables in 1NF. I quickly gave up, especially when I noted that you can talk to people about data in an ER model without ever getting involved in normalization.

There are people for whom an invoice is an invoice header, and a bunch of invoice items. Talking to these people about repeating groups, subentities, or 1NF is a complete waste of their time and mine. ER is my way of avoiding that pitfall. Your way is different.

The good news is that converting an ER model into an SQL model is so straightforward that an engine like DA can do it automatically. And even if you don't have a tool like DA, it's still a simple exercise. Received on Sat Oct 23 2004 - 19:18:46 CEST

Original text of this message