Re: General Database Terminology Question -- Mapping one table into another

I'm used to the IDEF1X terminology myself. If your audience is tech-oriented, "mapping" can mean many different things to them (mapping for me represents the linking of an attribute to its origin/source). I would stick with one of the fancier terms (CORRELATION or ASSOCIATIVE) and just give a quick run down of what it represents: this type of table allows multiple values of one table to be ASSOCIATED with multiple values of another table thus allowing the database to enforce the business rules for that set of data (or some semblance of defining what it does).

Jeff S

Dave Abercrombie <abe_at_rahul.net> wrote in message news:7m0ui8$lrb$1_at_samba.rahul.net...
> In article <3783ABEA.22F10E35_at_geopak.com>,
> Paul Schrum <Paul_at_geopak.com> wrote:
> { My question has to do with the terminology of this practice. I use the
> { CORRELATION table in a query to filter elements based on their filter.
> { In conversations with my collegues, we call the CORRELATION table a
> { "mapping". But in giving a presentation to about 150 people, I want to
> { be sure I am using the correct word. Is "mapping" the proper term, or
> { should I use something else?
>
> The IDEF1X term is "associative entity" or "associative table". But most
> likely your 150 people have not heard of IDEF1X either, so "mapping"
> might be better anyway.
>
> --
> --
> Dave Abercrombie (510) 653-1204 122 15.23' W
> abe_at_rahul.net 37 50.97' N
Received on Wed Jul 07 1999 - 22:01:59 CDT