Relational database notation question

[AndyW]

Might be a silly question, but having been out of the relational
database field for a few years (doing OO stuff instead) - whats with
this silly new notation thats on Wikipedia (If I type in ERD I get
taken to a page with Entry Relationship Model) as its title..

I'm familiar with the old crows feet symbol notation, square boxes and
all. When I looked up ERD on wikipedia all I can find is some silly
notation using triangles elipses that looks like its been created by
someone who has eaten way to much quiche for lunch (old style
programmers pun on quiche eaters intended) and never had to draw a
complex diagram in their life.

Has some new istandard been created so the kids can feel important -
or am I just getting old.

[Frans Bouma]

AndyW wrote:

It's nothing new really, it's how ERD's are described in for example
E. Yourdon's Modern Structured Analysis, from '89 so not really new ;)

I'm with you that it's not that common.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nick Malik [Microsoft]]

not just you. the article on wikipedia sucks. I don't know anyone who uses
a notation that remotely similar to that.

There are mechanisms in Wikipedia for challenging an article. Note that
there is a link, from the bottom of the page, to a very nice page posted by
the US Navy (of all people) that describes IDEF1X, which a far more standard
notation. https://idbms.navo.navy.mil/DataModel/IDEF1X.html

I think you need to start with a discussion on the article. Refer to
standards. Change the page.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"AndyW" <foo_@bar_no_email.com> wrote in message
news:1fh3j29a301qqdoi0...@4ax.com...

[AndyW]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:43:02 -0700, "Nick Malik [Microsoft]"
<nick...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:

>not just you. the article on wikipedia sucks. I don't know anyone who uses
>a notation that remotely similar to that.
>
>There are mechanisms in Wikipedia for challenging an article. Note that
>there is a link, from the bottom of the page, to a very nice page posted by
>the US Navy (of all people) that describes IDEF1X, which a far more standard
>notation. https://idbms.navo.navy.mil/DataModel/IDEF1X.html
>
>I think you need to start with a discussion on the article. Refer to
>standards. Change the page.
>
>--
>--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
> MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
> http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik
>
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
>representative of my employer.
> I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
>programmer helping programmers.

Thanks, I thought I was going insane for a moment :)

I thought about using IDEF... but couldnt rememer the syntax of the
notation. You can see I'm not the worlds greatest relational
database fan.

[topmind]

Frans Bouma wrote:
> AndyW wrote:
>
> > Might be a silly question, but having been out of the relational
> > database field for a few years (doing OO stuff instead) - whats with
> > this silly new notation thats on Wikipedia (If I type in ERD I get
> > taken to a page with Entry Relationship Model) as its title..
> >
> > I'm familiar with the old crows feet symbol notation, square boxes and
> > all. When I looked up ERD on wikipedia all I can find is some silly
> > notation using triangles elipses that looks like its been created by
> > someone who has eaten way to much quiche for lunch (old style
> > programmers pun on quiche eaters intended) and never had to draw a
> > complex diagram in their life.
> >
> > Has some new istandard been created so the kids can feel important -
> > or am I just getting old.
>
> It's nothing new really, it's how ERD's are described in for example
> E. Yourdon's Modern Structured Analysis, from '89 so not really new ;)
>
> I'm with you that it's not that common.
>
> FB

I think the industry has gotten symbol-happy of late. Characters are
fine and self-explanitory. Example:

1..n = 1 to many

1..1 = 1 to 1

n..n = many-to-many

Fancier versions include:

1..(0..n) = one to zero or more

-T-