Progress of Small Task

From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 05:22:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <598053b2-cfbf-4c07-a0e6-e376da30054d_at_googlegroups.com>

I am concerned that there ha been no progress on the small task.

• As I am sure that you can observe, most of the leg work is done, two chunks remain
• FDs, MVDs, JDs, BBs, FIIKs, are all complete (inasmuch as we assume that there /will/ be a PK for the attributes to be dependent on)
• Normalisation except for PKs and FKs is complete, the tables are practically given
• This is Task 1 in my Db Design course, the participants are supposed to be adults with some experience. It is structured to inform /me/ about the exact knowledge level of the participant re Relational Db Design and application of the RM. Specifically, which key concepts of the RM they do or do not know, and if they know a concept, whether they can apply it or not. Such that I know what items from the syllabus I can skip; teach only clarification of science; teach from scratch; etc. Such that I know what level to pitch the course content at.
• In the case of this thread, it will inform me, as to the degree of detail I need to post, when explaining things, ie. answering your questions, which are outstanding.
• In case it needs to be stated, the choice of keys, and their arrangement is crucial to any database, even more so in a Relational Database (due to related-by-key), the spec removes all other aspects, and allows you to focus on that one task.
• The exercise is not marked

Let's say the exercise is in three parts:

Part A:
__ The exercise, as given in a previous post
__ One small ambiguity has been left in (in case you are not aware, it is a classical old-style teaching method, notice the excitement on the noise channel, it engages personal interest; it inspires [that is, the Holy Ghost, not me!] )
__ 1. During that exercise, you are supposed to expose that ambuguity, and either fix it and complete the exercise (which a capable person does) or demand that I resolve the ambiguity and clarify the spec, before you can complete the exercise (which is what grasshoppers do).
__ 2. There is a small "research" task to be done, via google, ISO, ANSI, etc, to determine the standard-compliant components (but not the key itself) for each table.

Part B
__ I give you the "clarified" spec [A.1], eliminating said ambiguity
__ I give you [A.2] the standard-compliant identifying /columns/ for each table
__ you still have to determine the /keys/ for each table
__ This [A]+[B] remains as the small exercise, the result sought is a completed set of table specs that conform to the RM (whatever you think that is, whatever you mean when you have been making your posts and writing your articles).

Part C
__ There is no work involved in this part.
__ I add a new independent table to the database the participants have constructed, and we evaluate the effect it has on their tables and the SQL/DML code that would have been written to operate against those tables:

____ 1. no changes (meaning that the participant understands and implements Open Architecture; Standards; Ease of Extension.  Ie. the high end of the RM).
____ 2. small changes (meaning some understanding, something to teach)
____ 3. structural changes (meaning no understanding, a lot to teach)

__ In terms of learning, this component can be substantial, but in terms of work, there is none: it is just a check, a verification, that classifies the previous work. (Of course, I will skip the learning part for this thread.)

Given that a few days have elapsed, and no solutions have been submitted, I will make it easier for you. Here is the offer: I give you Part [B], eliminating the research task. - But, re [A.1], that will classify you as a less-than-fully-capable person in this task. Hence I am offering the above, and not giving it right away, you need to confirm that you want it.

Cheers
Derek Received on Sun Feb 01 2015 - 14:22:56 CET