Modern Database Management Hoffer 11th Edition Solutions Manual Modern Database Management Hoffer 11th Edition Solutions Manual CHG TO CATEGORY refers to Finance Charge Categories (e.g., Standard Purchase or Standard Cash Adv). TXN CATEGORY refers to Spending Categories (e.g., Merchandise, Services, Auto Rental, etc.). Acct Status refers to Active, Inactive, Closed, and Overdue. Merchant Txn Text refers to the text shown as part of the Txn Description shown on the Monthly Summary; if this value is NULL, then the business rule is to show Merchant Name, Merchant City, Merchant State as part of the Transaction Description information on the Monthly Summary report.
Alternative Two: 24c Do you find the same entities, attributes, and relationships in the two ERDs you developed for parts a and b? What differences do you find in modeling the same data entities, attributes, and relationships between the two ERDs? Can you combine the two ERDs into one ERD for which the original two are subsets? Do you encounter any issues in trying to combine the ERDs? Suggest some issues that might arise if two different data modelers had independently developed the two data models. Yes, when comparing the ERDs in part (a) and part (b), MERCHANT appears to be the same entity in both data models. Additionally, since it is known that the physical Receipt document that was used to generate the part (a) ERD is actually one of the transactions that is shown on the Visa Monthly Statement, there are common attributes between RECEIPT (part a) and TRANSACTION (part b), although different names have been used in the data models. Additionally, the Rct CC Account No from RECEIPT (in part a) is equivalent to the Account No from ACCOUNT (in part b). The two ERDs could be combined into one ERD, however, there would need to be decisions made about how the data that crosses organizational boundaries are maintained in different organization’s databases. For instance, the Receipt No on the Merchant’s receipts for purchases at the Merchant are relevant to the Merchant’s internal accounting records and may not be of use to the Credit Card Company’s reporting to its account cardholders. Likewise, the Credit Card Company needs to track the date that a particular account transaction is posted to the account, and this level of data is most likely not of interest to the Merchant. Aside from this larger issue, there are some minor naming issues that will need to be overcome if the data models are combined. Even though the MERCHANT entities are the same, standardization on names for the attributes needs to be resolved (e.g., Merchant ID vs. Merchant No). Additionally, the business usage of Transactions versus Receipt language needs to be sorted out. If two different data modelers had developed these ERDs, there would likely be even more variance in how the names of Entities, Attributes, and Relationships would have been established. It’s also possible that the different data modelers would not recognize that the RECEIPT and TRANSACTION entities are similar, if they did not share the sample data