Database design nearly finished

[Guest]

With the help of this group, this design is nearly finished. I still have one
area of confusion and hope you can help.

The question is regarding Items and Sites. I am unsure if I really need a
table Sites, or if the Site information could go in the Items table with each
item instead. Would this make the database easier to develop?
Do I have the relationships I need? Does this design look OK in terms of
running queries?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -

Tracks
TrackID
Track name

Sites
SiteID
TrackID <<<link to Tracks 1:m
Waypoint
<other site info>

Items
ItemID
SiteID <<<link to Sites 1:m

Events
EventID
ItemID <<<link to Items 1:m
Date
EventDescription (assessment, repair)
Cost estimate
Actual cost

Parameter Types
ParameterTypeID

Parameters
ParameterID
Parameter Type ID <<<link to Parameter Type 1:m
ItemID <<<link to Items 1:m
Parameter description

Values
ValueID
ParameterID <<<link to Parameters 1:m

 

[Lynn Trapp]

Liz,
I haven't followed the progress of any previous posts you have had here, but
to answer your question you need to ask yourself a simple question. For each
record in the Item table is there One And Only One record in the Sites
table. If you answer that "Yes," then it would be POSSIBLE to put the site
information in the Items table. However, also ask yourself another
question -- "Do I really want to have the Site information in the Items
table?" Is a Site an attribute of an Item? It doesn't appear to be so to me,
nor would logic suggest that it would be. I would say that you should keep
the structure as it is.