Re: confusing relationships

Thanks Vincents for the reply...

Vincent Johns wrote:

Even if some of the people in your database will never be policyholders,

No this database is being designed for a company that deals with other
peoples insurance policies...so all their clients have some sort of an
insurance policy...

my guess is that there are many fields common to [Contacts], [Spouse],
and [Child], such as name, sex, and birth date, and maybe health
information. If so, I suggest putting all of those common fields into
one combined [Persons] Table.

OK, this is on the lines of Allen Brownes reply...

You could include some other fields, such
as foreign keys back to the same [Persons] Table to identify an insured
person's spouse, or parent, etc.

How do you do this???
Do you mean store all the information abt the insurance in one table ...say
[Insurance], have that linked to the [Persons] table with foreign keys ??
Trying to maintain this personal
information in several separate Tables is likely to create headaches for
you, as you'll have to do the same work several times in designing and
using those Tables.

You are right, i'm at my wits end here!!

How you should identify multiple spouses I'm not sure (it depends on
what you want to do with the information), but I can see tricky
situations, such as to which of several spouses a particular child
should be linked. Or maybe you want a many-to-many children to parents
relationship defined. (You would probably need another Table in which
each record identifies a link between some child and some parent,
similar to the [tblClient] linking Table in Allen's sample database.)
Do some of these named spouses also have multiple spouses whom you need
to track? If so, this might call for another many-to-many relationship,
and another linking Table to manage it. (You might be able to combine
two such linking Tables, if they contain similar information.)

Is exactly one insured person named on each policy? Does your 1-to-many
[Contact] to [Insurance] relationship correspond to multiple
beneficiaries, or would it be a sequence of policies covering different
time periods?
It is a sequence of policies covering different time periods...to cover that..
..i have another table [PolicyType] which has all policy types (time periods
etc) which is linked to the insurance table with 1-many...

You may find that it will make sense, at first, to make some simplifying
assumptions, and try to set up a working database based on those, and
then embellish it later. For example, if you have only two clients with
multiple marriages, you might include a [Notes] field (memo data type)
in which you record special circumstances, and then manually update the
special information applying to those two clients, until you have
standard procedures in place to deal with them.


Now before you people replied, i did some changes to the db, and this is how
it looks now...http://members.westnet.com.au/mukund/rel.gif

-- Vincent Johns <vjohns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Please feel free to quote anything I say here.

Not sure I would use separate tables for contact, spouse, and child.

[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]

kingnothing

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting database value into a rule policy
    ... You need to have a variable of type Dataconnection ... instances in the composer or orchestration. ... I don't see where I can send a database ... but my policy only works in testing. ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)
  • RE: Database Corruption after Exchange SP 2
    ... I repaired my Exchange database successfully and I can perform backups ... A conflict in Group Policy can cause these events to occur. ... Windows XP to configure domain policies, you may find that the policies do ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: OO vs. RDB challenge
    ... >> policy is ensured by to be valid by the property set method. ... version might be okay in the simplest of requirements. ... are the one who was *insisting* on not adding unnecessary complexity, ... they are implemented in the database is because it is too inefficent to send ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Getting database value into a rule policy
    ... is the multi-part message type. ... I don't see where I can send a database ... but my policy only works in testing. ... >> orchestration calls the policy nothing is changed. ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)
  • Re: Copy a record in a form
    ... I work for an insurance company and I created a database to track claims. ... What my user wants is instead of re-typing the policy number, insured, date ... Unfortunately there is no primiary key. ... TC (MVP Access) ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)