Re: Named Mistakes and Questionable Practices

From: paul c <>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:15:38 GMT
Message-ID: <ehDjg.19242$iF6.5000_at_pd7tw2no>

-CELKO- wrote:
> paul c wrote:

>>> Personally, I wouldn't look to an 'industry standard code list' unless it was an explicit biz requirement, specified by the user/customer.  <<

> I strongly disagree with that viewpoint. If you were a doctor, would
> you only prescribe medicine the patient asked for? Of course not!
> Your duty as a professional is to be aware of industry standards, legal
> requirements and all that jazz. Not to know them in detail or be a
> domain expert, but to know enough to ask the right questions.
> In fact, a friend of mine left a client who did not want to follow
> legal requirements on the grounds that he was paying Leo and the police
> authorities were not. This was not a convincing argument :)
> One of the major advantages of industry standard codes is that I can
> get them from external sources -- ZIP code tapes from the USPS, NIAC
> code from the Department of Labor, UPC from UCC, etc. -- and not have
> to maintain them myself. I had much rather load a tape or a CD once or
> twice a year (at most) than constantly reviewing them.

More red herrings. Anybody who asks a DB expert to specify medical or legal requirements is an idiot. In fact, many people have realized that they will get two different prescriptions from two doctors since there are as many cookbook practictioners and quacks in that game as in IT.

As for ZIP codes, if they are a biz requirement then they are a biz requirement, no matter what the SQL guy says.

There's a good question about DB matters on this group right now, the thread called "Foreign key problem". Answering it would be more useful than promoting this cookbook stuff.

p Received on Tue Jun 13 2006 - 20:15:38 CEST

Original text of this message