Re: Another view on analysis and ER

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac> wrote in message news:9uD5j.1478$sg.563_at_pd7urf1no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac> wrote in message
> > news:0LB5j.6$iU.1_at_pd7urf2no...
> ...
> >> I suspect that two or more equally "correct" normalizations, correct in
> >> terms of theory, often suggest themselves.
> >
> > I agree with that, but it doesn't address the issue of whether you
design
> > an unnormalized schema and then normalize it on the one hand or on the
other
> > hand start with something from which you can design a schema that will
> > already be normalized.
>
> Why should anybody except possibly recipe-followers, conclude that, eg.,
> a top-down, or bottom-up, or indeed stepwise or iterative style dictates
> any such order, eg., anything but re-visiting motives such as
> normalization during implementation, as necessary? Also I would think
> "as necessary" has more to do with the motives behind normalization.
>
> The notion of "point-in-time" process analysis/design steps has more to
> do with collective/group project management and organizational dogmas
> than with skilled interpretation aimed at implementation of those steps.

Good point. Good stopping point (at least for me). Received on Wed Dec 05 2007 - 22:38:10 CET