In Case Studio 2.22 I made an ERD as can be seen on Link. When I made the same diagram in Filemaker 7, Filemaker doesn't accept the making of relationship 5. Does it have to do with the 'circle' I'm creating in ERD or is there something else wrong? Case studio allows me to make this ERD...

Kensje

When I made the same diagram in Filemaker 7

The relationship graph shown in filemaker isn't a ERD - I'm afraid but instead a graphic linking of TO (table occurences)

Try to read this: http://www.filemaker.com/downloads/pdf/techbrief_fm7_foundations.pdf

--sd

Yep, you can only have one path between table occurances.

Remember though that the FM relationships graph is *not* an ERD tool. A true ERD will only show tables. The FM graph does not show tables but table occurances. It's an important concept that is very well described in the mega migration tech brief.

Hi Sd,

Thanks for your reply. So when I want to realize the ERD I made, I have to make each table in the ERD in a new file or do I miss the point here...

The Relationship Graph is NOT an E-R Diagram. You are looking at Table Occurances, TO's for short. You can not have a circular path in the graph so you use another TO not another table.

Yes Ralph is right, and yes you're missing the point entirely ...the reading about TO's can't be avoided!

--sd

Thanks Sd for your advise. I found a rather interesting URL which explains the pros and cons of TO ands TOG's: Link

Regards,

Jan-Kees Kense

Well, the notion of pros and cons isn't valid. You don't have any choice - that's how FileMaker 7+ works. But it is helpful to understand how the concept works and the variations you can use in carrying it out.

the notion of pros and cons isn't valid

No correct - it's more the degree of utilization of the tools at hand. One thing from the whitepaper says this quite well.

Whether a complex project turns out good, bad or very ugly depends largely upon the skillful use of table occurrence groups.

...and yes it's too bad that just can't buy yet another blackbox'ish gadget, but instead have to work yourself towards the gist of topic, and not "the one who dies with most toys wins"

--sd