Re: How to normalize this?

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 17:38:17 UTC+2 schreef Jan Hidders het volgende:
> On 2013-05-01 13:08:38 +0000, Erwin said:
>
>
>
> > Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 11:20:47 UTC+2 schreef Jan Hidders het volgende:
>
> >> On 2013-04-30 22:17:44 +0000, Erwin said:
>
> >>
>
> >> And I would argue that in practice the different>> components usually
>
> >> turn out to be independent facts anyway. The fact>> that they have
>
> >> different underlying dependencies already sort of hints>> at that. But
>
> >> if you have a realistic example that would show otherwise,>> that would
>
> >> be interesting.
>
> >
>
> > Not sure if I'm thinking of the same kind of thing as you, but I'm
>
> > thinking of CUSTOMERs that have an AGE, where AGE determines [some kind
>
> > of] COMMERCIAL _CLASS.
>
> >
>
> > AGE and COMMERCIAL_CLASS don't become facts that are "independent" from
>
> > there being a CUSTOMER to begin with.
>
>
>
> There we probably differ. It might be that each class was introduced
>
> because of certain clients that we had in the past, but that does not
>
> logically exclude the possibility that at some point in the future we
>
> have for a brief period no clients of that class. In that case we would
>
> not want to lose the link between age and that class. So a separate
>
> age-class table would be a good design here.
>
>
>
> -- Jan Hidders

:-)

You responded only to the piece of which I wrote myself :

"Bad example. pls disregard."

Does the "_there_ we probably differ" imply then that you agree with the rest ? Received on Wed May 01 2013 - 18:08:17 CEST