Re: A general questio about names

From: Dan <>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:58:46 -0500
Message-ID: <GIgVe.8$>

On 9/10/2005 3:34 PM, John G. Eggert wrote:
> On 2005-09-10, -CELKO- <> wrote:

>>Vendors should have a verifiable tax id or Duns numbers.  You want to
>>have an extrnal, verifiable id like the SIN -- and the law probalby
>>wants to you have it too :0
>>Do not do a table of names; a name is an attribute and not an entity.

> Joe:
> Thanks for the reply. I was a bit zonked out from work when I wrote the
> post. Indeed, a name is an attribute. It seems that some people advocate
> normalizing to the point where one would have an entity called first_name or
> some such and use this to generate queries of full names that would then be
> attributes of an entity such as employee. I view this as going overboard,
> but I'm not as well versed in the field as some.
> As for SSN (or SIN here in Canada), my wife's pregnancy is requireing a lot of
> use of my employee benefits package. I've had to give my SIN (the
> 'identification number' of the policy) to a number of people of questionable
> integrity. I suspect this is because the database uses my SIN as the primary
> key. This is a very bad thing. I'm not sure about the states, but in Canada
> there is legislation detailing who is entitled to know one's SIN. If they
> aren't entitled, the structure of the database shouldn't require it.
> (Canadian law explicitly allows one to refuse to provide a SIN unless it can
> be proved that it is required to comply with one of 18 specific laws and
> regulations or 7 specific programs). Any primary key would be needed for
> queries on the entity and hence made widely available. This leads me to the
> point of view that the SIN or SSN should NEVER be used as a primary key.
> Indeed, one should always question whether it is even needed in the context
> of the database. If it isn't needed, don't include it. If it is needed, make
> it 'hideable' so to speak.
> Cheers.
> JE

Calling Big Brother... Received on Mon Sep 12 2005 - 16:58:46 CEST

Original text of this message