2 Oct
2015
2 Oct
'15
11:38 a.m.
Is that the way it's done these days, e.g. the
contents of the Location field in three places,
Location and Manual_Type only containing one
field, no keys other than Manual_Key etc.?
Looks like I'll have to brush up on database
design... ;-)
m
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Jaeger" <cube1 at charter.net>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on manual database design?
On 10/2/2015 12:04 AM, william degnan wrote:
Coming up with a schema that works with
multiple manufacturers is the big
challenge.
Not sure it is that big a challenge. Perfection
is not required. Just
the ability to find stuff later. My schema
currently has manual
manufacturer - the original manufacturer of the
machine, and then each
artifact (copy of a manual) has a publisher.
Consider the case of Apollo which got bought by
HP.
For a DNxxxx machine, the machine manufacturer
is always Apollo. For a
400 or 700 series, the manufacturer is always
HP. However a given copy
of a manual may have been published by Apollo
(older) or HP (newer) -
with the very same number. The schema supports
that.
(New schema posted at
http://webpages.charter.net/thecomputercollection/misc/manualmodel.pdf )
.
JRJ