Message-ID: <44E37A1A.7080006@solnet.homeip.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:03:38 +0200
From: "Jesper K. Pedersen" <jkp@solnet.homeip.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: OT: OpenDatabase Model ?
References: <44E343D6.1010906@solnet.homeip.net>
	<20060816190724.GE25228@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060816190724.GE25228@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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