[AccessD] Many to Many relationship issue

Jon,

I was responding to Art, not you.
On Apr 12, 2014 1:37 PM, "Jon Albright" <jon.albright at hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> I appreciate your input Bill and I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I was
> saying as a slam at the content you posted, I am only trying to understand
> how all the parts and pieces fit together and it was recommended that this
> forum is a good place for exchanging ideas and problem solving.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Bill Benson
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:07 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Many to Many relationship issue
>
> Maybe I used flatter incorrectly,  and maybe you use dependencies in a
> different context than I do.
>
> But I guarantee, GUARANTEE you that to keep an accurate audit and history
> of
> all the dependencies needed to populate what happened, when, on which jobs,
> for which companies, involving whom and in what roles... and be able to
> trace those deta I ls from the call table back to their components in the
> entity tables YOU COULD NOT DO IT while at the same time creating future
> transactions with fresh, current details. A call table is a history table,
> not an active environment. The active environment changes, the
> history/audit/warehousing details likely will NOT.
>
> Trying to preserve relationships kills, kills, kills reporting veracity
>
> If you want to improve "the quality" of the thread, get to it (but I don't
> like your implication that what has been offered so far is of low quality,
> that's rather rude).
>
> I am answering from my experience, yours is a welcome voice.
>
> I do not have any relationship diagrams to offer you.
> On Apr 12, 2014 12:38 PM, "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bill, et. al. on this thread,
> >
> > I seriously take issue with your comment that "the flatter your
> > information is, the less outside dependencies..."
> >
> > In my opinion, this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Or to phrase it another
> > way, this is the reason for Views, as opposed to direct table Selects.
> >
> > But this whole thread makes me wonder, Is there a way that we can
> > create a relational diagram, whether in Access or SSMS or some similar
> > tool, and include the diagram in the original post or its replies? For
> > this sort of discussion, a picture is worth 1000 words.
> >
> > Can this be done? I've not yet tried to do this; hence the question.
> > But I think that if it can be done, this would go a long way to
> > improving the quality of the threads.
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>