Thoughts on manual database design?

[Mike Stein]

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
>