Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The primary key of a relationship set in an E-R data model

  1. Mar 12, 2008 #1

    Eus

    User Avatar

    Hi Ho!

    I have posted this same question about three weeks ago on MySQL forum (http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?125,197805,197805) and on the mailing list of the book itself about two weeks ago (db-book-list@cs.yale.edu). But, still there is no response at all. Therefore, I try my luck by posting the question here.

    On a book, which is published by McGraw Hill, titled Database System Concepts, 4th Edition, by Silberschatz, Korth, and Sudarshan, I found a contradiction that I would like to clarify with you.

    The problem is within chapter 2, which starts on page 27 and ends on page 77, that discusses Entity-Relationship Model.
    On page 36 in a section that discusses the key to distinguish among the various relationships of a relationship set, there is the following statement:

    In my opinion, the last sentence is wrong. The right one should be as follows:

    "The composition of the primary key for a relationship set does not depend on the set of attributes associated with the relationship set [itex]R[/itex]."

    The following evidences support my argument:
    1. On page 32 in a section that discusses Relationship Sets there is the following statement:

    "A relationship instance in a given relationship set must be uniquely identifiable from its participating entities, without using the descriptive attributes."

    Previously, the descriptive attributes are defined as attributes that are associated with a relationship set.
    With other words, the composition of the primary key for a relationship set does not depend on the set of attributes associated with the relationship set R.

    2. On page 36 just below the concerned statement, it is written that:

    Because in both of the above cases the superkey (i.e., a set of one or more attributes that, taken collectively, allow us to identify uniquely a relation in a relationship set) is just
    [tex]
    primary-key(E_{1})\ \bigcup\ primary-key(E_{2})\ \bigcup\ ...\ \bigcup\ primary-key(E_{n})
    [/tex],
    the composition of the primary key for a relationship set does not depend on [itex]{a_{1},\ a_{2},\ ...,\ a_{m}}[/itex] (i.e., the set of attributes associated with the relationship set [itex]R[/itex]).
    With other words, in both of the above cases, the set of attributes
    [tex]
    primary-key(E_{1})\ \bigcup\ primary-key(E_{2})\ \bigcup\ ...\ \bigcup\ primary-key(E_{n})
    [/tex]
    is sufficient to describes an individual relationship in set [itex]R[/itex].
    Therefore, the composition of the primary key for a relationship set does not depend on the set of attributes associated with the relationship set [itex]R[/itex].

    To conclude, is it true that the composition of the primary key for a relationship set does not depend on the set of attributes associated with the relationship set [itex]R[/itex]?

    In practice there are some examples that require the use of descriptive attributes to form the primary key of a relationship set. One such examples is as follows:

    Consider two entity sets: Student and Course along with one relationship set: Took that describes a many-to-many relationship between Student and Course, as well as one descriptive attribute associated with the relationship set: Quarter.

    If one student is only permitted to take a course once, then the primary key of the relationship set will be
    [tex]
    primary-key(Student)\ \bigcup\ primary-key(Course)
    [/tex]

    But, if one student is permitted to take a course more than once, then the primary key of the relationship set will be
    [tex]
    primary-key(Student)\ \bigcup\ primary-key(Course)\ \bigcup\ {Quarter}
    [/tex]

    If it is true that:
    "The composition of the primary key for a relationship set does not depend on the set of attributes associated with the relationship set [itex]R[/itex].",
    the relationship set of the aforementioned example must be transformed to an entity set named: Academic Quarter in spite of the fact that we are still working on the E-R data model (usually we start creating bridging-tables and other necessary transformations when we translate the E-R data model into the relational data model).

    Is such transformation a common practice when modeling data with E-R data model because the composition of the primary key for a relationship set does not depend on the set of attributes associated with the relationship set [itex]R[/itex]?

    Thank you very much.

    Best regards,
    Eus
     
  2. jcsd
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you help with the solution or looking for help too?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: The primary key of a relationship set in an E-R data model
  1. Zeros in a data set (Replies: 4)

Loading...