Re: database integrity
From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:26:10 -0400
Message-Id: <8icam2-fuv.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
>
> Additionally, in more complex change, the retrospectively entered
> data may need to be addressed and essentially "converted" to conform
> to the implementation of new rules. This conversion will be a once
> off update of the data, to get it to conform to new rules.
>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:26:10 -0400
Message-Id: <8icam2-fuv.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
mountain man wrote:
> "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:K%6je.95748$hi2.5651565_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>> Kenneth Downs wrote: >>> >>> One question on my mind is the change in rules over time. Do we say: >>> >>> 1. Data is valid if it adheres to all existing biz rules, OR: >>> 2. Data is valid if it adheres to rules that were in force when it was >>> inserted or updated. >> >> Very interesting question. I would say that it is the simplest to let the >> static database constraints be applicable for all the data, and if you >> want to restrict what can be added (or deleted or updated) then you use >> dynamic database constraints (or transition constraints, as they are also >> called) to specify that.
>
> Additionally, in more complex change, the retrospectively entered
> data may need to be addressed and essentially "converted" to conform
> to the implementation of new rules. This conversion will be a once
> off update of the data, to get it to conform to new rules.
>
Can we tie this to some examples?
-- Kenneth Downs Secure Data Software, Inc. (Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)Received on Tue May 24 2005 - 03:26:10 CEST