Thread: OT: OpenDatabase Model ?
Doing a bit of database work for several friends (golf clubs and so on) I was very keen to start using a sort of "standard" and not least open database model with predefined tables. Up to now I have been writing and defining the tables by hand but I can see an advantage in using a "standard". The ODBM group that was offering this was found at http://www.opendatabasemodel.com - but the past long time it seems like it is dead. Anyone know of any other projects similar to this? Any suggestions that may help is welcome. Best regards Jesper K. Pedersen
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 06:12:06PM +0200, Jesper K. Pedersen wrote: > > Doing a bit of database work for several friends (golf clubs and so on) > I was very keen to start using a sort of "standard" and not least open > database model with predefined tables. If I understand your question correctly, I think this is what the various Normal Forms are for, no? A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca Everything that happens in the world happens at some place. --Jane Jacobs
Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 06:12:06PM +0200, Jesper K. Pedersen wrote: > > >>Doing a bit of database work for several friends (golf clubs and so on) >>I was very keen to start using a sort of "standard" and not least open >>database model with predefined tables. >> >> > >If I understand your question correctly, I think this is what the >various Normal Forms are for, no? > >A > > > I may be a bit "vague" in saying what the project was about as the last time I visited them was when they were actually active and offering standard table defenitions. The normal forms are as far as I know just how you decide to tie together your tables. The opendatabase model actually offered a standard set of table definitions covering a wide range of data storage. Of course this means that the tables would often have stuff you dont need, and may not have the things you need, but at least there is a common "thread" in how you different databases look. For the big company that can afford having people optimizing databases that isnt the best choice, but for the common small scale users it is rather nice that we dont have to reinvent the tables each time we make a new database. Best regards Jesper K. Pedersen
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:03:38PM +0200, Jesper K. Pedersen wrote: > The opendatabase model actually offered a standard set of table > definitions covering a wide range of data storage. > > Of course this means that the tables would often have stuff you dont > need, and may not have the things you need, but at least there is a > common "thread" in how you different databases look. For the big company Ick. I confess my reaction is mostly aesthetic, but still. Why don't coding practices and column naming conventions get you this? That way, you can make your physical data model resemble your logical data model, rather than pounding with a big hammer on your logical model to make the physical storage you have fit? The database is not a filesystem. If you just need a filesystem and a SQL-like interface to it, use MySQL 3.x. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca The plural of anecdote is not data. --Roger Brinner