none
ISO 11179-5 and table names RRS feed

  • Question

  • I've seen Joe Celko and others point to ISO 11179, part 5 in particular, in support of naming tables by collective names. However, I've been poring over it and am unable to find the applicable reference! Anyone be so kind as to guide me?

    For the record, I fully agree, I just need to prove it to someone. :)

    Since my new account won't allow me to link: http://metadata-standards.org/11179/#A5

    Monday, January 26, 2015 4:51 AM

All replies

  • Hi dthtvwls,

    Example of ISO/IEC 11179 naming in relational databases

    ISO/IEC 11179 is applicable when naming tables and columns within a relational database.

    Tables are Collections of Entities, and follow Collection naming guidelines. Ideally, a collective name is used: e.g., Personnel. Plural is also correct: Employees. Incorrect names include: Employee, tblEmployee, and EmployeeTable.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_element_name

    If you have any question, feel free to let me know.


    Eric Zhang
    TechNet Community Support


    Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:16 AM
    Moderator
  • I don't think posting a link to Wikipedia is very helpful, especially when the relevant section contains a [citation needed] tag
    Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:29 AM
  • Hi dthtvwls,

    Example of ISO/IEC 11179 naming in relational databases

    ISO/IEC 11179 is applicable when naming tables and columns within a relational database.

    Tables are Collections of Entities, and follow Collection naming guidelines. Ideally, a collective name is used: e.g., Personnel. Plural is also correct: Employees. Incorrect names include: Employee, tblEmployee, and EmployeeTable.


    Yes, this is exactly not what I was looking for, because I already googled Wikipedia, but when I actually read the text of the standard, I'm unable to find an explicit reference to back this up.
    Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:52 AM
  • To get the original paper, you normally have to pay for it:

    ISO web site

    There seems to be a freely accessible copy here, but I cannot check if this is the same as the original:

    ISO 11179-5 PDF version

    Matthias Kläy, Kläy Computing AG

    Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:22 AM
  • There seems to be a freely accessible copy here, but I cannot check if this is the same as the original:

    Yes, this is the same version as I found, but the closest thing I could find to addressing table names in the paper itself was an "Object Class name", something like an OOP Class or something you'd find in a UML diagram, but not really the same as a table name, and in any case all the examples were singular.

    Was actually kinda hoping Celko would deign to comment on this himself as he seems to be the chief proponent of the "collective identifiers as specified by ISO 11179" meme.

    Friday, January 30, 2015 1:21 AM
  • Was actually kinda hoping Celko would deign to comment on this himself as he seems to be the chief proponent of the "collective identifiers as specified by ISO 11179" meme.

    Seems to? As far as I know, he is the only one I've seen that keep nagging this. If there is nothing in ISO 11179 that matches what he is talking about, I would find that very amusing.

    Personally, I don't care at all about ISO 11179. I do prefer plural for table names in most cases, but if someone else advocate singular, I have no better argument than "personal preference". I would recommend, though, that you are consistent. That is, don't have Customer and Products in the same database.


    Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
    Friday, January 30, 2015 8:24 AM