Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc06.POSTED!67537acd!not-for-mail
From: "AC" <AC@No.spam>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
References: <jibDe.20900$IJ1.2378@trnddc02>   <42dd8886$0$76953$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>   <kayDe.18480$ph1.17838@trnddc06> <1122168791.730962.143770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <TkFEe.4555$6M3.3607@trnddc03> <MqMEe.3754$6f.2689@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Property sheet, ad hoc, property page, flexible data
Lines: 39
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <aR9Fe.2374$9y3.721@trnddc06>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:04:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.242.26.205
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc06 1122314694 71.242.26.205 (Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:04:54 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:04:54 EDT
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:32448

"David Cressey" <david.cressey@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:MqMEe.3754$6f.2689@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "AC" <AC@No.spam> wrote in message news:TkFEe.4555$6M3.3607@trnddc03...
>
> PMFJI.
>
> The fundamental problem with user defined attributes is not a theoretical
> one.  It's one of conflicts between two incompatible requirements of the
> users.
>
> The first requirement is, as you outlined, that users want to be able to
> extend the schema to include data items that are not defined in the 
> schema,
<snip/>

That is the situation.  Just like ACT (previously from Symantec) allowed you 
to have "property sheets" we would like to do something similar.  The reason 
is that some items will be standard but there are too many possibilities 
with various business requirements to specify in advance all fields.  This 
way there is flexibility without too much data bastardization.  Ad hoc 
fields will show up in a grid view only.

> The other requirement is that the data in the data base be sharable and
> usable by the entire user community in search of information.  You can't
<snip/>
This is not a requirement or expectation.  Base fields would be shareable 
but ad hoc fields would of course not be able to be shared.  There is no 
expectation for sharing in the same way that two companies that used ACT and 
merged could not expect a 1:1 matching of their "property sheet" data.

Has anyone done this before?  I know it's not common as I have not worked on 
a project with this scenario before however I know that with Salesforce 
Automation packages it is done.

Regards,
--AC