Re: Date of Birth as an attribute

Yeah, me too. So, I would call the schema an implementation model.

"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:c519t9$2n05mj$1_at_ID-114862.news.uni-berlin.de...
> To me, "physical model", or "relational schema" is an expression of the
> implementation in the RDBMS.
>
>
> "Tom Hester" <$$tom_at_metadata.com> wrote in message
> news:d50d6$40742393$45033832$16071_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> > Certainly calling the relational model the logical model makes both
> > practical and theoretical sense; and calling the ER-level the conceptual
> > model makes sense too, although I personally prefer requirements model
or
> > analysis model as I think it is clearer and more accurate depending on
> > whether the model simply records requirements or represents some kind of
> > business analysis. However, I find physical model to be vague and
> > misleading. Do you mean implementation model, or do you mean the actual
> > implementation syntax, or? In what sense is the physical model
physical?
> >
> > "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:reednQMCbKLdkund4p2dnA_at_comcast.com...
> > > Just a terminology question, I can point it out without making a
> mountain
> > > out of a mole hill.
> > >
> > > I've always seen the "ER" model listed as the "conceptual model"
rather
> > > than the "logical model".
> > >
> > > In this framework, you first turn the ER conceptual model into a
> > relational
> > > logical model, and then turn the logical model into a physical model.
> > >
> > > It's an extra step, but I think it buys you something.
> > >
> > > Again, I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The rows
by
> > any
> > > other name would smell as sweet.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 07 2004 - 19:10:45 CEST