Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

Kenneth:

"Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message news:ulf462-prv.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...
> Bill H wrote:
>
> >
> > I think this is the crux of the debate. 1NF cannot properly model an
> > audit
> > system. It can model parts of it but not the fundamental requirement of
> > it unless delusional assumptions are made (that nothing can go wrong and
> > we can foresee everything).
> >
> > We know this. We make assumptions and adjustments to try to account for
> > this. We joke about auditors and accountants. But it is, nonetheless,
> > true!
>
> Well I didn't know this. Can you offer a simple example of how you have
to
> outside of 1NF to solve an audit situation?

An audit system needs totals from two different directions. It needs to compare these totals with calculated totals to discern if there's a likely problem within the data. This is a pretty simple and effective solution to auditing needs. You've mentioned (I think it was you but apologize if it wasn't) the (quantity * price) equation. A simple 1NF model would hold both variables but not need the actual cost because it can be calculated.

An audit model, on the other hand, would demand that the actual cost, calculated at the time of data creation, be stored along with the calculation components. In addition, it would be auditomically (I couldn't help myself) correct to hold the order total or all goods purchased within the order record, even though this amount could be calculated. This provides the auditor with much better assurance that nothing is missing. For instance, if individual detail records disappeared (for a variety of reasons) the totals crossfooting would most likely spot this.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

Bill Received on Wed Nov 10 2004 - 02:42:39 CET