 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/14 23:32, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 9:18 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> Ah, but when I said 'Would you like a whisky?' you queried the
>> distillery, the year, the barrels it was aged in,
>
> No. It was you that did that. I drink Grouse. </Hint>
>
... which will save me a heap of cash the next time we meet :-)
Incidentally, I rescued a book from our local library as it was closing
down (they'd built a new one just down the road) called 'When The Lights
Went Out - Britain In The 70s'. A bit lefty for my taste but interesting
just the same. Could I give it to you?
>> BTW What's SAP ;-)
>>
>
> A distant memory. They say it rises in the spring. ;-)
>
So, when are you next in London and free for a night of debauchery? (One
proviso: Wednesdays are out. The Kat has lectures, seminars etc then, so
yours truly has to look after the Feegle)
John (wondering why he's still awake at this hour -see timestamp)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05/01/2014 21:25, Doctor John a écrit :
> I am, as I have said several times to Stephen, not a database person.
> However, I seem to have got lumbered with a (non-paying) job; to whit,
> the design of a database to document 13th and 14th century bank
> transactions using their surviving ledgers.
>
> Originally, I thought a flat file would be sufficient but the more I
> think about it the more I'm convinced I was wrong. I attach a very small
> png that shows my current thinking.
>
> To explain: each banking family (Gallerani, Borromei etc) has several
> branches (London, Paris, Bruges ...). Each branch has several ledgers
> (numbered by series) and every ledger contains several hundred items
> containing details of transactions. Transaction1 is the initial approach
> by the Actor to the branch and Transaction2 is the future outcome
> (either payment to the same or a different actor and at the same or a
> different bank/branch).
>
> Ignoring the complexities of writing the code to view, manipulate and
> play with the database, does this look sane to you? (BTW Solid lines
> indicate Identifying Relationships and broken lines in Non-Identifying
> Relationships)
>
> John
>
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.
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.
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.
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 ?)
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 ?
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2014 10:02 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 05/01/2014 22:27, Doctor John nous fit lire :
>> TRANSACTION1 is the initial payment to the bank. TRANSACTION2 is a later
>> payment by a bank* to an actor; it therefore requires a different date
>> (usually but not always specified) as well as a way of specifying where
>> it will be enacted.
>
> So, what about calling T1 as Credit/Credence, and T2 as Debit/Restitution.
I was thinking more about collapsing them both into a single table...
If you're just trying to do double-entry accounting, there's no especial
reason why you need one table for one half of the entry, and another
table for the other half. (Then again, I do not have much of an
understanding of the problem domain behind this design, so...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 05/01/14 23:32, Stephen wrote:
> > On 05/01/2014 9:18 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> >> Ah, but when I said 'Would you like a whisky?' you queried the
> >> distillery, the year, the barrels it was aged in,
> >
> > No. It was you that did that. I drink Grouse. </Hint>
> >
>
> ... which will save me a heap of cash the next time we meet :-)
> Incidentally, I rescued a book from our local library as it was closing
> down (they'd built a new one just down the road) called 'When The Lights
> Went Out - Britain In The 70s'. A bit lefty for my taste but interesting
> just the same. Could I give it to you?
>
Yes, of course. A paper book no less, how quaint. :-)
> >> BTW What's SAP ;-)
> >>
> >
> > A distant memory. They say it rises in the spring. ;-)
> >
>
> So, when are you next in London and free for a night of debauchery? (One
> proviso: Wednesdays are out. The Kat has lectures, seminars etc then, so
> yours truly has to look after the Feegle)
>
I am not sure, I wouldn't mind a night of debauchery, if. I can remember what
that is. :O
> John (wondering why he's still awake at this hour -see timestamp)
Old age, mate. :-P
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/01/14 19:51, Stephen wrote:
> Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> Yes, of course. A paper book no less, how quaint. :-)
>
I must remember to put it in a prominent position so I don't leave it
behind.
>
> I am not sure, I wouldn't mind a night of debauchery, if. I can remember what
> that is. :O
>
It'll come back to you. It's like riding a bike.
>> John (wondering why he's still awake at this hour -see timestamp)
>
> Old age, mate. :-P
>
You and me both ;-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/01/14 19:27, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 10:02 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 05/01/2014 22:27, Doctor John nous fit lire :
>>> TRANSACTION1 is the initial payment to the bank. TRANSACTION2 is a later
>>> payment by a bank* to an actor; it therefore requires a different date
>>> (usually but not always specified) as well as a way of specifying where
>>> it will be enacted.
>>
>> So, what about calling T1 as Credit/Credence, and T2 as
>> Debit/Restitution.
They've now been renamed to TRANSACTION and LIABILITY
> If you're just trying to do double-entry accounting, there's no especial
> reason why you need one table for one half of the entry, and another
> table for the other half. (Then again, I do not have much of an
> understanding of the problem domain behind this design, so...)
The last thing the team want to do is double-entry book-keeping :-)
The main aims of the project are:
1. How did the banks make their money? They couldn't charge interest
(the Church forbade the practice) and exchange rates seem to have been
the same between two currencies whichever direction the transaction
went. So were they using deposited money to trade in goods such as wool
and spices?
2. The Church had just started to use the banks to transfer money to and
from the Vatican. Did this sudden influx of substantial amounts of cash
give rise to an increase in trading all over Europe and thus provoke the
mini-Renaissance that only came to an end with the onset of the Black Death?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Additional. I have just received a phone call informing me that the team
has unearthed 200 pages of of Vatican documents itemising payments into
and out of the Curial treasure chests. They cover the period in question
but are written by churchmen rather than financiers so they don't always
include some of the essential (to a financier) information. I'm now
waiting for a few pages of translated items (I don't speak or read
Medieval Latin) and then it's back to the drawing board. :-(
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.01.2014 17:43, schrieb Doctor John:
> Additional. I have just received a phone call informing me that the team
> has unearthed 200 pages of of Vatican documents itemising payments into
> and out of the Curial treasure chests. They cover the period in question
> but are written by churchmen rather than financiers so they don't always
> include some of the essential (to a financier) information. I'm now
> waiting for a few pages of translated items (I don't speak or read
> Medieval Latin) and then it's back to the drawing board. :-(
All this reminds me of a project my father has been working on for the
last few years: Transcribing records from a monastery about their
properties, tenants, cottagers and what-have-you-not (plenty of who
moved out of or into which piece of land, what they had to pay for
moving in, what they had to pay to stay, what their compensation was
when moving out, whom they married, whom they gave birth to - all sorts
of stuff like that).
Fortunately for him, he didn't aim for a database; transcribing the old
handwritings and adding some annotations of his own was all he was
aiming for.
He is now arranging for the results to be published as a book.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/01/2014 19:40, clipka wrote:
>
> All this reminds me of a project my father has been working on for the
> last few years: Transcribing records from a monastery about their
> properties, tenants, cottagers and what-have-you-not (plenty of who
> moved out of or into which piece of land, what they had to pay for
> moving in, what they had to pay to stay, what their compensation was
> when moving out, whom they married, whom they gave birth to - all sorts
> of stuff like that).
>
> Fortunately for him, he didn't aim for a database; transcribing the old
> handwritings and adding some annotations of his own was all he was
> aiming for.
>
> He is now arranging for the results to be published as a book.
>
The Kat (Principal Investigator in this project) has expressed interest
in getting a copy of your father's book, let me know when he publishes.
The email you see for me is valid but put p.o-t in the subject line
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
