Re: A simple situation shows confusion about basic concepts

From: Ney André de Mello Zunino <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:55:18 -0300
Message-ID: <>

Konstantinos wrote:


> Since you have different kinds of relation types (yes the relations between
> UCs, nothing to do with the relations or tables of the database), Laconic2
> is also right in that all 3 attributes uc1_id, uc2_id and relation_type are
> the primary key. If you do decide to use autonumbers, I would suggest you
> use them on the UC table, not the KB table. I find this to be useless and
> redundant.

Great! The advices seem to be converging and I hope to have captured them well in my latest design for the KB table (as also shown in my reply to Alan):

KB (Knowledge Base)

uc1_id (PFK)
uc2_id (PFK)
relation_type (PK)

> I am not sure, however, if this a flexible design for a knowledge-base but
> neither can I suggest an alternative as this is not my domain. If you are
> into knowledge bases and ontologies, take a look at Protege. It is free
> software from Stanford university.

I am definitely no specialist in knowledge bases; thanks for the reference.


Ney André de Mello Zunino
Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 23:55:18 CEST

Original text of this message