Re: 3NF question
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:17:47 GMT
Message-ID: <fkaFd.4454$KJ2.3899_at_newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
"vldm10" <vldm10_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105400808.349778.54120_at_c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I disagree. A person table might have a person_id that uniquely
> > identifies that person within a specific application.
> > But a column named ID has no place in any set.
>
> This is not necessarily true. There are first three steps in designing
> db applications and solutions: 1. Analysis; 2. Conceptual model; 3.
> Relational model (or other DB models)
> It is not necessary to set column-name rules from Relational Model in
> step 1 as a must (especially not during setting the problems, first
> meetings, interviewing, intended model etc).
> So as the begging of the 1st step we have Elves's interpretation of
> the problem. His use of the name ID in that sense is OK. You jumped
> directly to 3rd step skipping the first two steps and demanding
> Relational Model terminology.
>
> Vladimir Odrljin
>
Received on Wed Jan 12 2005 - 15:17:47 CET