 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/14 21:03, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 8:25 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> I am, as I have said several times to Stephen, not a database person
>
> And he said "What's a database?" :-)
>
Ah, but when I said 'Would you like a whisky?' you queried the
distillery, the year, the barrels it was aged in, the name of the
blender's younger daughter etc etc. :-D
BTW What's SAP ;-)
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 05/01/14 21:18, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 08:25 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> does this look sane to you?
>
> My database design lecturer would be complaining about ACTORS being
> plural while everything else is singular. Myself, I'm a little bit
> puzzled about the purpose of TRANSACTION1 and TRANSACTION2...
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.
*It appears that there was some degree of trust between banking
families so that the Gallerani (say) would pay out on behalf of the
Borromei.
Incidentally, the IsChurch boolean is purely there to make it easier to
isolate Vatican transactions.
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 05/01/14 21:18, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 08:25 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> does this look sane to you?
>
> My database design lecturer would be complaining about ACTORS being
> plural while everything else is singular. Myself, I'm a little bit
> puzzled about the purpose of TRANSACTION1 and TRANSACTION2...
Additional, TRANSACTION2 may not exist in every case which may imply
that the bank keeps the money. 'Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose'
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/14 22:02, 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.
>
But that's just nitpicking. The planned views do not have to be named
after the tables.
I still ask though, regardless of names, does it look sane?
BTW Andrew, your lecturer was a pathetic pedant
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 05/01/14 22:02, 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.
>
The other problem is it may be to a different actor at a different bank.
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 9:18 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 05/01/14 21:03, Stephen wrote:
>> On 05/01/2014 8:25 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>>> I am, as I have said several times to Stephen, not a database person
>>
>> And he said "What's a database?" :-)
>>
>
> 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>
the name of the
> blender's younger daughter etc etc. :-D
>
Might have been, might have been.
> BTW What's SAP ;-)
>
A distant memory. They say it rises in the spring. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
