On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:39:56 -0700 Andrew S Halper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Descriptions of ER representations in UML reference books are amusing: > "If you need to represent x in your ER diagram, use a tagged value.", > which always seems to the engineer in me like: "We know the UML is too > general to unambigously represent your actual RDBMS data structures, so > here's a clumsy work-around." Heh. And the UML shapeset is, for ERD representation, exactly that. tedia2sql makes up its own stupid conventions (hey, I'm the author, I can call it stupid if I want): Want your attribute to be a member of the primary key? Make it a "private" attribute. Want the class to be a view, not a table? Check the "abstract" box. Want an index on the table? Put an operation on the table, and make its "type" be index. But UML & ERD aren't a complete intersection either. Yeh, an ERD shapeset is sorely needed. It's on my TODO list. -- Tim Ellis Senior Database Architect Gamet, Inc. _______________________________________________ Dia-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
