Re: Naming convention for dependencies and contingencies?

"./Rob &" <invalid_at_invalid.net> wrote:

>Let's say you have a database that stores entries (example only) for
>construction materials.
>
>You have a table with all your materials and any dependencies.
>
>Dependency | Contingency
>-----------------------------------
>Plywood | Nails /* Plywood needs Nails to install, but Nails
>do not need Plywood */

     Plywood can be installed with screws.

>Roof Shingles | Felt Paper /* To install Shingles you need Felt Paper,
>but Felt Paper does not need Shingles */
>Felt Paper | Plywood
>Felt Paper | Staples
>Roof Shingles | Roof Nails
>-----------------------------------
>
>Are Dependency and Contingency good table names?
>It's the best I could think of, but the names just don't seem natural to me.
>
>Has anyone used a better naming convention?

     This looks like a parts explosion in another form. Installed plywood consists of plywood and nails. You might add labour, too, depending on your model.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.