Unit 9 – New Vocabulary
by Irate Wizard
When I think of the struggles I have encountered in this course they all seem to stem from the challenge of observing new vocabulary. Even this week, which seems so familiar to me as it stems from a lot of the information I picked up in 515 presents vocabulary challenges. I’m starting to realize that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I wish there was another way to say that! There’s more than one way to teach XML and Relational Databases. There’s more than one way to refer to the procedure of creating a database, but there’s also different vocabulary that can be used. I think figuring out that this new word means that word I learned last semester is a bit of challenge.
Perhaps a greater challenge is looking at relationships. (This week that’s even true for human relationships as well) Next time someone asks me to do an XML schema, I’ll do books. Last time I chose diamonds. this time I chose bridges. I think I’m moving in the right direction. But I get a little muddled on the relationships. Lets assume that a bridge has one designer. (I understand that a bridge could have more than one designer, but if that happens I’ll considered that group of a designers an individual group (The Design Firm of Batman and Robin)). So a bridge (Arizona Bridge) has one designer (J. Smith). That’s a 1 to 1 relationship, right? But one designer (J. Smith) could design many bridges (Arizona Bridge, California Bridge). So that’s a 1 to many relationship, right? So, do I show to arrows one pointing from bridge to designer in a 1 to 1 and one point from designer to bridge in a 1 to many? God, I hope so because that is what I did. If not, I’m really confused because how could you show both sides of the relationship with an arrow that only points in 1 direction. It sort of makes my head hurt thinking about it. Maybe the answer will come to me while I’m playing tennis.
Update: After giving it more thought, I realized my mistake… The relationship has to work the same way in both directions. So, in other words, my thoughts at the end of the last paragraph are wrong. I have been thinking about one bridge, when the table contains many bridges so the relationship should I think of in this way: Many Bridges can have One Designer and One Designer can have Many Bridges. This still accounts for the fact that each bridge (One Bridge) will have One Designer, which is what i was getting tripped up on before. So Many Bridges can have One Designer and One Designer can design Many Bridges. Just like Many Bridges can go over One Body of Water and One Body of Water can have Many Bridges. So glad I cleared that up. Even though if I think about it too long I still get confused.