RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word

[Ralph Hilken <ralph.hilken@artige.com>]

Hope this is in text, please excuse me if it is still in HTML.

Nicolas LEHUEN wrote on 8/29/2001 3:44 AM EDT:
>If you want to stick with the table/column metaphor, I don't know of any
>relational data processing that care about a column without taking care of
>the table it belongs to.


While watching this fascinating thread, IMHO a point should be brought out
on the database side of things.

FWIW, when I use ERwin (an expensive database modeling tool favored by
Fortune 500 firms) out of the box to design tables, it will prompt me
whenever I add a column to a table that has the exact same column name
already used in another table.  I thought this was a curiosity, as I know
what table the column belongs to, so I ignored that message and kept on
trudging.  

Now I realize that maybe there are folks out there that _do care_ that
columns in database tables must maintain unique names.  In that case having
a unique column name would be sufficient enough for identifying things
uniquely in such a system across tables.  BTW, ERwin would be more than
happy to generate a unique column name if one is short on imagination at the
moment.

There are also many folks who enjoy prepending a "T_" in front of database
table names, in case you were wondering that the name you just encountered
is a table name.  I consider myself happy that I never ran into a database
that prepended all of its column names with a "C_".  I have seen data t**ing
make their way into column names.

The problem of naming seems to transcend XML applications.

Regards,
Ralph