Re: Just one more anecdote

David Cressey wrote:

>
> You've just outlined, in precise terms, the distinction between analysis
> and design.
>
> Many times, we engage in unconscious design when we think that what we
> are
> doing is actually analysis. When we do that,
> we reframe the original problem. If we do so in a positive way, it's
> serendipity. If we do so in a negative way, it's "just one of those
> things". But it isn't. It's flawed analysis.
>

Methinks that the RM is close enough to perfection (I did not say it was perfect, nor even close to perfect, just close _enough_) so that analysis and design are really the same thing. The process of analysis is the process of attempting to cast record-keeping needs in terms of normalized tables.

ERD has never appealed to me because it seemed to be trying to make something easy that was in fact already easy. Because it was trying to make something more easy, it had to introduce elements that masked reality, such as a M:M relationship that masks a cross-reference table. What's the point? The x-ref itself is sometimes useful for direct querying, so why not show it?

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)