[AccessD] A noun is a person place or thing - what is an Event?

An event cannot apply to muliple companies.
On May 27, 2013 11:54 PM, "Stuart McLachlan" <stuart at lexacorp.com.pg> wrote:

> Can an event relate to multiple associates in different companies?
>
> i.e. six people from each of four different companies all attend the same
> seminar?
>
> If so, I'd go with an Event table and a link table containing eventID and
> associateID.
>
> Alternatively make your link table:
>
> EventID
> LevelFlag
> ConcernedPartyID
>
> where LevelFlag is C]ompany or A]ssociate and the value of that flag is
> used to determine
> which table is linked.
>
> --
> Stuart
>
> On 27 May 2013 at 23:20, William Benson (VBACreations. wrote:
>
> > Hi this may well be long-ago-covered ground, but I am stuck in a
> relational
> > database conundrum.
> >
> > Simple world, there are companies, they have associates (people), those
> > people have events, and those events require notification circles.
> >
> > For example, a driver for a trucking company, may have a medical
> inspection,
> > notification of the due date for which, is to be sent to the trucker as
> well
> > as the company's dispatcher (so that, after a certain date, the
> dispatcher
> > will remember not to send that trucker on any routes without proof of
> > completed medical check).
> >
> > I am struggling over whether to make all events tied to the company with
> a
> > FK, or whether to make all events tied to an Associate, thus only
> indirectly
> > tied to the Company.
> >
> > The reason for my second-guessing the latter approach, which on the face
> of
> > things seems obvious, is scalability. Suppose there are certain kinds of
> > events which are not related to associates, but based on the company
> itself.
> > I can't think of too many of examples of these off-hand, but for example,
> > certain marketing oriented events, or billing related events, might be
> worth
> > tracking.
> >
> > If I chose the other approach, to work at a Company level, create an
> Event
> > for that company, then choose the Associate(s) for whom the Event
> mattered,
> > then it seems all bases would be covered.
> >
> > Am I right in leaning towards the latter approach?
> >
> > --
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> >
>
>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>