In the figure shown below, which of the following business rules would apply?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

First, restating the question and options helps set the scene: In the figure shown, which business rules would apply? The answer choices are:
- Option A: Each vendor can supply many parts to any number of warehouses, but need not supply any parts.
- Option B: Each part must be supplied by exactly one vendor to any number of warehouses.
- Option C: Each warehouse can be supplied with any number of parts from more than one vendor, and each warehouse could be supplied with no parts.
- Option D: VENDOR is not allowed.

Now, let's evaluate each option one by one with attention to typical data modeling rules for vendor–part–warehouse relationships and common constraints illustrated by such figures.

Option A analysis: The idea that a vendor can supply many parts to any number of warehouses, but need not supply any parts, describes a flexible, potentially many-to-many relationship between vendors, parts, and warehouses. This matches a common business rule where vendors provide multiple parts, and those parts can be stored in multiple warehouses, and it is permissible for a vendor to supply zero parts in some scenarios. This option reflects a permissive but plausible model, avoiding unnecessary restrictions.

Option B analysis: Claiming that each part must be supplied by exactly one vendor to any number of warehouses imposes a single-vendor-per-part constraint. While this could be true in some systems (single-sourced parts), it does not allow the same part to be supplied by multiple vendors, which is a common and often desirable capability in many supply chains, and may conflict with a diagram that supports more than one vendor supplying parts. If the diagram shows potential for multiple vendors for the same part, this option would be too restrictive.

Option C analysis: Stating that each warehouse can be supplied with any number of parts from more than one vendor, and that each warehouse could be supplied with no parts, emphasizes that warehouses can contain parts from multiple vendors and also acknowledges the possibility of an empty warehouse. While this is a reasonable scenario, it does not directly address the relationships between vendors, parts, and warehouses as explicitly as Option A and may imply more permissive connections than the diagram intends. If the figure intends a consistent supply chain where some parts or vendors are optional, this could be partly correct, but it may also overstate the multiplicity by suggesting every warehouse must be able to receive from multiple vendors for all parts.

Option D analysis: Saying 'VENDOR is not allowed' would contradict the very idea of a vendor–part–warehouse model, where vendors are a fundamental entity. Unless the diagram indicates there is no vendor in the model, this option is unlikely to be correct and would generally be considered inconsistent with a standard vendor-based schema.

Synthesis across options: In many typical ER- or relational-style diagrams involving vendors, parts, and warehouses, the most permissive and widely applicable rule is that vendors can supply many parts to many warehouses, and that not every vendor must supply parts. This aligns with Option A, which allows a vendor to supply multiple parts and to distribute to multiple warehouses, while also allowing the possibility that a vendor supplies no parts at all in some cases. The other options introduce stronger constraints (unique vendor per part in B), overgeneralized cross-warehouse sourcing (C), or removing the vendor entity entirely (D) that are either too restrictive or inconsistent with a vendor–part–warehouse model.

Note: If the diagram actually specifies specific cardinalities (for example, a part must be supplied by exactly one vendor, or every warehouse must receive at least one part), then the evaluation would shift accordingly. Based on the information given, Option A presents the most flexible and commonly correct interpretation for a typical vendor–part–warehouse schema, while the other statements introduce constraints or impossibilities not typically supported by such diagrams.

In the figure shown below, which of the following business rules would apply?

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Once you added the tables to build a relationship, you then [选择] converted dragged right-clicked the relevant field from one table to the relevant field in the other table.

The main form shows the [选择] many one side of the relationship and the subform shows the [选择] one many side of the relationship.

What is the purpose of the relationship feature in a table?

4 . What is the relationship between employees and managers?

Below is an entity-relationship diagram for a relational database: Which best describes the relationship between customers and sales?

When creating relationships between tables in Access, the two cardinality types used by the software are and .

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单

In the figure shown below, which of the following business rules would apply?

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Once you added the tables to build a relationship, you then [选择] converted dragged right-clicked the relevant field from one table to the relevant field in the other table.

The main form shows the [选择] many one side of the relationship and the subform shows the [选择] one many side of the relationship.

What is the purpose of the relationship feature in a table?

4 . What is the relationship between employees and managers?

Below is an entity-relationship diagram for a relational database: Which best describes the relationship between customers and sales?

When creating relationships between tables in Access, the two cardinality types used by the software are ______ and ______.

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

更多留学生实用工具

希望你的学习变得更简单

When creating relationships between tables in Access, the two cardinality types used by the software are and .