On 06/01/14 08:35, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I stand by the objection that tables named from numbered "object" have
> the wrong name. (old rule: if you have to number the tables's name, you
> are doing it wrong)
> Transaction1 might be BlackInk, Transaction2 RedInk, if you use the ink
> colour of that time.
> 
> It seems that each item has at most one transaction#1 and at most one
> transaction#2.
> 
Correct

> Can an item have no transaction at all ? (what would an item do in a
> ledger in such case ?): if no, transaction1 should be incorporated into
> item.
> 
Yes. Remember, we are dealing with medieval banking before the days of
double-entry book-keeping - a 15th century innovation. Occasionally
there are Items that state the local branch's cash-in-hand and others
that record communications received from 'Head Office'

> keying the relation between actors and transaction1 on a varchar(60)
> seems to open the pandora box of data integrity. An explicit (numerical)
> key of actor (automatically generated by the database) could be safer.
> 
Thanks. I missed that. It has been corrected.

> Transaction2 has city & bank, which I suppose are "on behalf of" or the
> opposite ?
> Now I wonder about the item: what would be the objects in the following
> situation:
> Bank A, City 1, Ledger L, an item K is provided by Actor X (btw, date ?)
Date is assumed to be the same as the date that the ledger entry was
made (LEDGER.ItemDate)

> Actor X goes to City 2, Bank B pays on behalf of Bank A the local
> equivalent of item K.
> Does Bank B, city 2, Ledger D get an entry ?(item & transaction2 ?)
> Does item K of Ledger L be extended with transaction2 ?
> 
No. It is hoped that some of the ledgers (variously located in archives
in Paris, Ghent, Siena and Rome) will record the fulfilment of the
transaction, in which case it will have its own record. The way I was
thinking was that Transaction2 purely records a future liability (which
may or may not be fulfilled).

A typical item reads:
n.16  25th May 1305
Item we received £25 13s 4d sterling from Messer Ricardo Anibaldi of
Rome, canon of the Lateran, for 38.5 marks (38 marchi meco di sterlini),
which were paid on his behalf by maestro Ruberto di Patriarcha which we
have written (rabbatuti) in the Ledger at f. 92 into his account. For
that sum we made him a letter of payment to ours at the [Vatican] Court
who are to pay to him 197 golden florins, and 3 grossi tornouis, at the
rate 5.125 florins per mark on 15th August. The letter of payment is
being sent to the Court for Artigino of Rieti, familiaris of Berardo del
Poggio

Until the ledger recording the payment by the Vatican branch is
unearthed we cannot be sure that Transaction2 of Item 16 was ever fulfilled.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message