I've been assigned to redo a library type system. The current system was done in 4 and 5.

There are 3 main db's, one each for pictures, documents and audio/video. Each one has a few similar fields but most are different.

There are 3 category db's, one each for building, corporations and subject matter. There are 3 line items db's.

So the pictures database has 3 portals to show any buildings, corportations or subjects related to the picture. Same with the other two - documents and audio/video.

I think I should combine the main db's into one table and the category db's into one table and line items into one table and have one portal in the main for any category.

Is there anything wrong with this idea or a better idea?

Thanks,

R

I've been assigned to redo a library type system. The current system was done in 4 and 5.

There are 3 main db's, one each for pictures, documents and audio/video. Each one has a few similar fields but most are different.

There are 3 category db's, one each for building, corporations and subject matter. There are 3 line items db's.

So the pictures database has 3 portals to show any buildings, corportations or subjects related to the picture. Same with the other two - documents and audio/video.

I think I should combine the main db's into one table and the category db's into one table and line items into one table and have one portal in the main for any category.

Is there anything wrong with this idea or a better idea?

Thanks,

R

I've been assigned to redo a library type system. The current system was done in 4 and 5.

There are 3 main db's, one each for pictures, documents and audio/video. Each one has a few similar fields but most are different.

There are 3 category db's, one each for building, corporations and subject matter. There are 3 line items db's.

So the pictures database has 3 portals to show any buildings, corportations or subjects related to the picture. Same with the other two - documents and audio/video.

I think I should combine the main db's into one table and the category db's into one table and line items into one table and have one portal in the main for any category.

Is there anything wrong with this idea or a better idea?

Thanks,

R

The fact that you say "most (fields) are different" tells me these should be different tables. Are there any other considerations that should evaluated? What are the advantages of reduciing the number of tables? What are the disadvantages of reduciing the number of tables?

Is this from 5 to 6 or 5 to 7?

The fact that you say "most (fields) are different" tells me these should be different tables. Are there any other considerations that should evaluated? What are the advantages of reduciing the number of tables? What are the disadvantages of reduciing the number of tables?

Is this from 5 to 6 or 5 to 7?

The fact that you say "most (fields) are different" tells me these should be different tables. Are there any other considerations that should evaluated? What are the advantages of reduciing the number of tables? What are the disadvantages of reduciing the number of tables?

Is this from 5 to 6 or 5 to 7?

From 5 to 7. A couple of reasons why I'm looking at the main as one table. First is eventually this will be searchable from the web and I'm thinking it would be easier to have one table. Second, it would seem to me that they are the same type of records, just in a different category. The different fields are mostly descriptive for that type of record, the pictures have who the photographer was, if they are slides, negatives, etc, the documents who the publiser is, year of publication, author, etc. I've never done a library system before so I'm thinking out loud here.

From 5 to 7. A couple of reasons why I'm looking at the main as one table. First is eventually this will be searchable from the web and I'm thinking it would be easier to have one table. Second, it would seem to me that they are the same type of records, just in a different category. The different fields are mostly descriptive for that type of record, the pictures have who the photographer was, if they are slides, negatives, etc, the documents who the publiser is, year of publication, author, etc. I've never done a library system before so I'm thinking out loud here.

From 5 to 7. A couple of reasons why I'm looking at the main as one table. First is eventually this will be searchable from the web and I'm thinking it would be easier to have one table. Second, it would seem to me that they are the same type of records, just in a different category. The different fields are mostly descriptive for that type of record, the pictures have who the photographer was, if they are slides, negatives, etc, the documents who the publiser is, year of publication, author, etc. I've never done a library system before so I'm thinking out loud here.

Have you talked with a professional librarian or with an information specialist working at a nearby publisher? They might help you with hints on structuring objects and standards used in bibliographic and picture databases.

Martin

Have you talked with a professional librarian or with an information specialist working at a nearby publisher? They might help you with hints on structuring objects and standards used in bibliographic and picture databases.

Martin

Have you talked with a professional librarian or with an information specialist working at a nearby publisher? They might help you with hints on structuring objects and standards used in bibliographic and picture databases.

Martin

I talked with someone who is familiar with this database. Apparently it's setup the way it is because it was originally 3 completely seperate db's in 3 different departments. When the departments were combined they were bundled together. They were all originally designed in FM3 for simple data tracking. She doesn't know who combined them.

I'll see if I can find a librarian to talk to.

I talked with someone who is familiar with this database. Apparently it's setup the way it is because it was originally 3 completely seperate db's in 3 different departments. When the departments were combined they were bundled together. They were all originally designed in FM3 for simple data tracking. She doesn't know who combined them.

I'll see if I can find a librarian to talk to.

I talked with someone who is familiar with this database. Apparently it's setup the way it is because it was originally 3 completely seperate db's in 3 different departments. When the departments were combined they were bundled together. They were all originally designed in FM3 for simple data tracking. She doesn't know who combined them.

I'll see if I can find a librarian to talk to.

One of the sample files that comes with FMP7 is Lending Library. You might want to look at it before going iinto your design.

One of the sample files that comes with FMP7 is Lending Library. You might want to look at it before going iinto your design.

One of the sample files that comes with FMP7 is Lending Library. You might want to look at it before going iinto your design.

Interestingly, the FMP7 example has one table for different types - book, software, equipment. However I talked with a person who says he has done quite a bit of data modeling and he thinks that you would have a seperate table for each, one for book one for software and one for equipment.

Interestingly, the FMP7 example has one table for different types - book, software, equipment. However I talked with a person who says he has done quite a bit of data modeling and he thinks that you would have a seperate table for each, one for book one for software and one for equipment.

Interestingly, the FMP7 example has one table for different types - book, software, equipment. However I talked with a person who says he has done quite a bit of data modeling and he thinks that you would have a seperate table for each, one for book one for software and one for equipment.

Have you considered an interface file to work with the 3 files?

Have you considered an interface file to work with the 3 files?

Have you considered an interface file to work with the 3 files?