Path: text.usenetserver.com!out01b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "JOG" <jog@cs.nott.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: Mapping arbitrary number of attributes to DB
Date: 25 Oct 2006 06:10:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <1161781843.278839.266720@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <453967a2$0$19667$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
   <1161465441.723954.203100@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <453d126a$0$19727$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
   <1161636885.535467.304030@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <453d522f$0$19658$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
   <DTm%g.7058$ke4.4635@trndny02>
   <453e54fc$0$19645$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.243.220.41
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1161781848 547 127.0.0.1 (25 Oct 2006 13:10:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:10:48 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 cache3.nottingham.ac.uk:3128 (squid/2.5.STABLE3)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=128.243.220.41;
   posting-account=WQE_Eg0AAACz0MT8Z7vkSN2k8y0AQ1oA
Xref: usenetserver.com comp.databases.theory:159574
X-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:10:48 EDT (text.usenetserver.com)

Joshua J. Kugler wrote:
> David Cressey wrote:
> > PMFJI.
> >
> > Now that I see what you are up against,  I have a better handle on why you
> > are perplexed.
> >
> > If I can generalize a little bit from what you've written here,  you want
> > a
> > data model that will be impervious to changing information requirements.
>
> Actually, I just want a data model that can have a flexible number of
> attributes since various stations will have a flexible number of
> attributes. :)

I worry that you are conflating entity-attributes with tuple-attributes
(proposition roles). Nevertheless my instinct would be to use something
like the following:

STATION:1 has INSTRUMENT:thermometer with RECORDING:57 at
TIME:25/10/06.
STATION:2 has an INSTRUMENT:wind_speed with RECORDING:120 at
TIME:25/10/06.
etc.

If you went for a proposition attribute such as THERMOMETER_READING for
every possible 'entity attribute' you would record a huge amount of
facts with extremely varied structures (i.e. with very few
commonalities between them from which to extract predicates from), and
would hence end up with an unwieldly amount of tables.

>
> But I do understand the impossibility of preparing for every eventuality.  I
> just want to be prepared for an eventuality I know will happen.
>
> j
>
> --
> Joshua Kugler
> Lead System Admin -- Senior Programmer
> http://www.eeinternet.com
> PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu/  ID 0xDB26D7CE
> 
> -- 
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com