Re: vehicle to autoparts relationships

javelin wrote:
> Jeff & Celko,
>
> First of all, thanks for all of the input. I have to say I don't agree
> that all sectios of the automobile are parts and more than the vehicle
> itself is a part. Perhaps in real life, the consumer will but a 2000
> Ford Escort, and later may purchase a head gasket for it, so to that
> customer each one is simply a part# on his invoice.
>
> In regards to my current database, I have a Vehicle table, an
> EngineConfiguration table, a Transmission table, and a host of others.
> I believe each vehicle (make, model, year, body style, etc) must have
> different sections, and each section can have many parts. I know a part
> can be used in multiple sections, so this calls for an Xref
> (crossreference) table. I can only assume that this is the way your
> typical autoparts store handles things, but I'm not sure. I may have to
> post this on an autoparts site to get a better idea.
>
> Thanks for the input, and any more ideas you may have.
>
> Jeff Smeker wrote:
>

>>-CELKO- wrote:
>>
>>>>>All things are parts (cars, sections, parts) <<
>>>
>>>Yes
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Any part can be a parent <<
>>>
>>>No, some parts are atomic
>>
>>I assume this means it is just a single part, with no children. If so,
>>I didn't mean that every part HAD to be a parent, just that any part
>>COULD be. From a DB structure point of view.
>>
>>
>>>>>Any part can be a child <<
>>>
>>>No; there is a final assembly
>>
>>Again, a part does not HAVE to be a child, but any part COULD be.
>>
>>
>>>>>Every part can have supplier information (i.e. multiple suppliers,different supplier part
>>>
>>>numbers) <<
>>>Yes, but the intermediate assemblies are supplied by us from atomic
>>>parts.
>>
>>Once again, this is fine. The part does not require supplier info, but
>>could, if needed.
>>
>>
>>I must be confused, I thought, per the OP:
>>
>>
>>>I have a challenge, to figure out what part of the vehicle to relate parts to.<
>>
>>Well, the structure I presented does just that.

One big laugh in all this stuff is that some participants seem to think they are talking about an natural kind of actuality whereas the historical truth is that many of the relationships are unnatural and were determined twenty or thirty years in a very artifical way, mostly using codes dreamed up by people who thought hierarchical or network databases were the be all and end all. Today every time I go to a retail checkout counter and encounter a cashier who can't make change, I'm reminded how much the false use of computers is endemic and what a false reality it creates. Reminds me how fresh vegetables used to be graded by the Canucks, maybe still are, had to do with a taste test by the agriculture inspector and whether the importer got credited for Fancy, Choice or Standard quality was mostly determined by how much the inspector had to drink the previous evening. Not to tout the Yanks, but to their credit they used a machine - it was called something like the "Tenderometer".

p Received on Sat Dec 09 2006 - 01:47:54 CET