The grading scale for this class is as follows:

[95%, ] = A       

[90%, 95%) = A-

[87%, 90%) = B+

[83%, 87%) = B

[80%, 83%) = B-

[77%, 80%) = C+

[73%, 77%) = C      

[70%, 73%) = C-

[67%, 70%) = D+

[63%, 67%) = D

[60%, 63%) = D-

[-, 60%) = F  

If you think (1) your achievements were not graded fairly, or (2) I made a mistake in my calculations, please inform me by e-mail immediately.

 

Nickname Questions 30/Aug  Questions 1/Sep  Test 06/Sep  ERDs Sep/22 Test Oct/20 SQL Nov/10 Test Nov 27 PROJECT FINAL TOTAL TOTAL/96 FINAL GRADE
ALL 100 100 61 63 94.3 92 78 99 87.0 86.9 90.53 A- ALL
BIG 100 0 89 73 76.0 58.5 79.5 100 84.0 82.5 85.93 B BIG
CRA 100 100 78 0 61.5 28 53.5 98 69.0 63.2 65.87 D CRA
DEL 100 100 94 65 76.3 42 75 100 79.0 79.3 82.56 B- DEL
DIN 100 100 61 74 70.5 70 69.5 92 75.0 76.7 79.91 C+ DIN
DOL 100 100 100 96 67.5 94 76.5 94 81.0 85.3 88.90 B+ DOL
GAM 100 100 83 92 74.3 87.5 76 90 80.0 83.2 86.70 B GAM
JZA 0 100 94 16 93.0 84 100 98 99.0 88.3 91.99 A- JZA
LOG 100 100 61 83.5 100.0 84 76.5 92 88.0 87.0 90.67 A- LOG
NOT 100 100 78 79.5 94.3 76 90.5 100 78.0 88.0 91.62 A- NOT
PRZ 100 100 89 91.5 95.5 78 94 75 90.0 86.7 90.27 A- PRZ
PUR 100 100 78 92.5 98.3 97 82 98 96.0 93.7 97.55 A PUR
QUA 0 0 89 84 46.5 81.5 53 93 65.0 71.3 74.30 C QUA
RAX 0 0 72 0 83.8 80 89 88 84.0 76.3 79.50 C+ RAX
SEI 100 100 100 87 100.0 90 83.5 97 83.0 91.2 95.01 A SEI
SIM 100 0 72 67.5 53.3 69.5 75 100 68.0 75.0 78.10 C+ SIM
STU 100 100 94 84 78.5 79 74.5 98 79.0 84.4 87.95 B+ STU
TIN 100 0 100 96 79.8 95 57 99 85.0 85.9 89.48 B+ TIN
VIN 100 100 67 81 72.3 94 53 96 86.0 81.0 84.39 B VIN
WEP 100 100 100 76 63.8 80 86.5 98 82.0 84.3 87.79 B+ WEP
Max. Score 100 100 100 96 100 97 100 100 99 94 98    
Avg. Score 81.82 72.73 80.56 70.16 76.34 77.69 76.13 94.53 81.90 82.51 85.95    
Median 100.00 100.00 81.94 77.75 76.13 80.00 76.50 97.40 82.50 84.35 87.87    
Min. Score 0 0 56 0 42 28 53 75 65 63 66    
% of the Final Grade  0.5 0.5 5 9 15 10 15 25 20 100      

 

TEST1: Congratulations to DOLT and WEPN for perfect record. TINMAN, BIG STEVE, DELMEGA, PRZYBYLOWICZ, JZA 70, QUANTUM, SEIGE TANK, STUDENT follow pretty close! Congrats!

 

ERDs: Congratulations to DOLT and TINMAN for their work. GAMBLOR, PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER, and PRZYBYLOWICZ keep close!!! Here is the exact distribution of your points:

Nickname Music 3.21 3.23a 3.23b 3.23c 3.23d 3.23e 3.23f 3.23 3.24 3.25 TOTAL
ALL 14 12 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 17 14 63
BIG 13 15 3 3 3 1.5 2 2.5 15 16 14 73
CAP 17 16 3 3 3 0 0 0 9 17 12 71
CRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DEL 14 13 3 3 3 0 0 0 9 17 12 65
DIN 18 14 3 3 3 0 0 0 9 17 16 74
DOL 20 19 3 2.5 3 3 4.5 3 19 20 18 96
GAM 19 14 3 3 3 3 4 3 19 20 20 92
JZA 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
LOG 20 14 3 3 3 1.5 2 2 14.5 17 18 83.5
NIC 17 5 2 3 3 3 5 3 19 16 14 71
NOT 12 14 3 3 3 1.5 2 3 15.5 20 18 79.5
PRZ 18 20 3 3 3 1.5 3 2 15.5 20 18 91.5
PUR 18 20 3 3 3 2.5 5 3 19.5 17 18 92.5
QUA 15 17 3 3 3 3 4 3 19 17 16 84
RAX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEI 20 18 3 3 3 0 0 0 9 20 20 87
SIM 12 12 3 3 3 1.5 2 1 13.5 14 16 67.5
STU 19 16 3 3 3 0 0 0 9 20 20 84
TIN 17 19 3 3 3 3 5 3 20 20 20 96
VIN 14 18 3 3 3 0 0 0 9 20 20 81
WEP 15 16 3 3 3 0 0 0 9 18 18 76
Max. Score 20 20 3 3 3 3 5 3 20 20 20 96
Avg. Score 14.9 13.3 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.1 1.8 1.3 11.8 15.6 14.6 70.2
Median 16.5 14.5 3 3 3 0.75 1 0.5 11.25 17 17 77.75
Min. Score 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

TEST2: Congratulations to SEIGE TANK and LOGIK for perfect scores. PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER followed very closely! Congrats!

Nickname Part 1 Part 1 Normalized to 15% 1 2 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 Part 2 Total Total My birthday bonus Total after bonus
ALL 13 9.75 26.5 9 0 8 10 10 10 73.5 83.3 11 94.3
BIG 6 4.5 25.5 7.5 0 4 6 10 7.5 60.5 65.0 11 76.0
CAP 4 3 11 6 5 1 4 1 0 28 31.0 11 42.0
CRA 8 6 12 8.5 5 6 4 6 3 44.5 50.5 11 61.5
DEL 11 8.25 17 10 5 5.5 6 4 9.5 57 65.3 11 76.3
DIN 4 3 13 10 5 8 8 5 7.5 56.5 59.5 11 70.5
DOL 6 4.5 21 10 4 2 7.5 3 4.5 52 56.5 11 67.5
GAM 11 8.25 21 10 5 8 7 2 2 55 63.3 11 74.3
JZA 16 12 24 9 5 6 9 10 7 70 82.0 11 93.0
LOG 15 11.25 27 10 4.5 9 10 9.5 9.5 79.5 90.8 11 100.0
NIC 9 6.75 11 10 5 2 2 1 2 33 39.8 11 50.8
NOT 13 9.75 28.5 10 5 10 10 4 6 73.5 83.3 11 94.3
PRZ 10 7.5 26.5 10 5 7 9 10 9.5 77 84.5 11 95.5
PUR 15 11.25 29 10 5 10 10 3 9 76 87.3 11 98.3
QUA 0 0 11 7.5 4.5 0 4 7.5 1 35.5 35.5 11 46.5
RAX 11 8.25 26 10 5 3.5 7 3 10 64.5 72.8 11 83.8
SEI 20 15 29.5 10 5 9 9.5 10 7 80 95.0 11 100.0
SIM 3 2.25 9 6.5 5 6 5 4 4.5 40 42.3 11 53.3
STU 10 7.5 24.5 9.5 0 6 10 4 6 60 67.5 11 78.5
TIN 9 6.75 24 10 5 7 9 4 3 62 68.8 11 79.8
VIN 7 5.25 21 9 5 3 7 4 7 56 61.3 11 72.3
WEP 9 6.75 24.5 8.5 0 0 6 3 4 46 52.8 11 63.8
Max.Score 20 15 29.5 10 5 10 10 10 10 80 95   100
Avg.Score 9.5 7.2 21.0 9.1 4.0 5.5 7.3 5.4 5.9 58.2 65.3   76.0
Median 9.5 7.125 24 10 5 6 7.25 4 6.5 58.5 65.125   76.125
Min.Score 0 0 9 6 0 0 2 1 0 28 31   42

 

SQL Homework: Congratulations go to PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER, TINMAN, VINCENT, and DOLT!

Question  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total
ALL 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 92
BIG 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 3 3.5 1 0 4 2 4 2 2 0 0 0 4 4 2 0 58.5
CAP 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 3 3.5 2 3 4 0 4 2 2 2 1 4 4 1 2 4 71.5
CRA 4 0 1 4 4 4 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
DEL 4 0 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 0 2 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 42
DIN 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 1 3 2 4 1 1 4 2 3 2 3 1 4 2 4 4 2 3 70
DOL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 3 4 94
GAM 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3.5 4 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 87.5
JZA 4 1 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 0 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 84
LOG 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 84
NOT 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 4 4 2 3 0 2 4 4 1 3 1 2 4 4 3 4 76
PRZ 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 0 2 4 1 3 4 78
PUR 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 97
QUA 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.5 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 0 2 4 81.5
RAX 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 0 0 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 80
SEI 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 1 2 2 4 4 3 4 90
SIM 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3.5 2 0 4 0 4 2 2 2 1 4 4 1 2 4 69.5
STU 4 1 4 4 4 4 2 1 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 1 2 4 79
TIN 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 95
VIN 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 94
WEP 4 0 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 0 4 2 4 80
Max. Score 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 97.0
Avg. Score 4 1.8 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 2.4 3.3 3.1 3.5 2.7 2.4 3.8 2.7 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.4 3.4 2.9 2.3 3.4 77.7
Median 4 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 80.0
Min. Score 4 0.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0

 

Test 3: Congratulations go to JZA 70. Awesome work!

  Part1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 3 Bonus TOTAL FINAL GRADE  
ALL 2 11 7 20 8 10 5 63 78 ALL
BIG 5 8 7 19 23 0 2.5 64.5 79.5 BIG
CRA -2 11 6 15.5 8 0 0 38.5 53.5 CRA
DEL 3 14 7 19 8 9 0 60 75 DEL
DIN -4 14 8 19.5 8 9 0 54.5 69.5 DIN
DOL 4 15 7 18.5 14 3 0 61.5 76.5 DOL
GAM 6 11 7 16 21 0 0 61 76 GAM
JZA 11 15 15 19 23 9 5 97 100 JZA
LOG -4 14 7 19.5 25 0 0 61.5 76.5 LOG
NOT 6 14 7 18.5 20 10 0 75.5 90.5 NOT
PRZ 6 13 7 18 25 10 0 79 94 PRZ
PUR 0 11 14 20 17 0 5 67 82 PUR
QUA -4 11 9 14 8 0 0 38 53 QUA
RAX 13 15 15 17.5 11 0 2.5 74 89 RAX
SEI 4 14 0 19 22 9.5 0 68.5 83.5 SEI
SIM 9 9 15 19 8 0 0 60 75 SIM
STU -4 14 7 14.5 19 9 0 59.5 74.5 STU
TIN 5 6 3 5 23 0 0 42 57 TIN
VIN -1 14 7 10 8 0 0 38 53 VIN
WEP 1 15 14 14.5 18 9 0 71.5 86.5 WEP
Max 13 15 15 20 25 10 5 97 100 Max
Min -4 6 0 5 8 0 0 38 53 Min
Avg 2.8 12.45 8.45 16.8 15.85 4.375 1 61.725 76.125 Avg
Med 3.5 14 7 18.5 17.5 1.5 0 61.5 76.5 Med

 

PROJECTS: My respect goes to people who did Rental Company and Configuration Management Databases. Nice...

PROJECT System Requirements Contextual DFD ER in Min, Max notation Rationale for DBMS Implementation-ready Model Data Dictionary SQL Documentation Presentation TOTAL TOTAL CURVED
Rental Company 15 5 18 5 18 10 15 5 5 96 100
Group CJ 15 5 17 5 17 10 15 5 5 94 98
Configuration Mgmt 15 4 17 5 20 10 15 5 5 96 100
Restaurant Mgmt 15 5 17 5 20 8 15 4 5 94 98
ABE System 15 5 16 5 20 10 15 5 4 95 99
Hotel Mgmt 15 5 15 5 20 10 12 3 5 90 94
Game Developer Comp. 15 5 18 5 16 10 12 5 3 89 93
Star Trekkie 15 5 16 2 15 10 15 5 5 88 92
RecipeMatcher 15 5 16 3 19 10 15 5 5 93 97
NBA 15 5 17 5 18 10 12 5 5 92 96
Goonswarm 12 4 18 5 18 10 9 5 5 86 90
Willson Auditorium 15 5 18 5 20 10 12 5 5 95 99
RightNow Networking 12 5 14 5 18 2 9 3 4 72 75
TRI-GIS 15 5 17 5 18 10 15 4 5 94 98
TRI-03 12 5 15 0 20 10 12 5 5 84 88
Toxic Avenger 15 5 17 5 20 10 12 5 5 94 98
MAX 15 5 18 5 20 10 15 5 5 96 100
MIN 12 4 14 0 15 2 9 3 3 72 75
AVG. 14.4 4.9 16.6 4.4 18.6 9.4 13.1 4.6 4.8 90.8 94.5
MEDIAN 15 5 17 5 18.5 10 13.5 5 5 93.5 97.4

 

COMMENTS ON FREQUENT ERRORS IN THE PROJECTS (by section):

System Requirements

1. Missing requirements

2. Essay-like description of the system instead of concise (but informative) bullet-type specification

3. Relations between entities considered only in one direction

 

Contextual DFD

1. Lack of directions for presented data flows

2. Two-directional arrows to specify data flows

3. All data flows going in the same direction

 

ER in Min, Max notation

1. PK's are not marked properly (or missing)

2. Min or/and Max values in relations are not specified

3. Identifying relations are missing for weak entity types

4. Partial PK's are not marked properly

5. Using unexpected symbols with no explanation (e.g. arrows)

6. Confusing relationship types with entity types

7. Omitting System Requirements, despite having them specified earlier

8. Confusing drawing (links merged together before connecting to entity/relationship types)

9. Spreading parts of diagram over multiple pages without specifying connectors between them on the diagram

10. Merging composite attributes (e.g first and last name put together limits your search capabilities)

11. Improper specification of entity types

12. Frequent repetition of names for relationship types got me confused (e.g. includes, defines, has, contains, etc.)

13. Modeling of existing documentation (i.e. forms) instead of the actual system

 

Rationale for DBMS

1. Not taking under consideration client's preferences

2. Making choice without strong rationale for it

3. Lack of comparison with other possible/similar DBMSs

 

Implementation-ready Model

1. Lack of denormalization when needed

2. Claiming that the implementation-ready model is normalized, whereas it is not

3. Improper mapping

4. Redundant attributes/tables (especially in the case when tables with only one attribute has been specified)

 

Data Dictionary

1. Missing entries

2. Missing columns

 

SQL

1. Lack of constrains: PKs, FKs, etc.

2. Improper data formats used for the attributes (e.g. varchar for date values, etc.)

 

Documentation

1. Missing page(s)

2. Hand-written comments/modifications/page numbers

3. Wrong order of pages

4. Lack of consistency in format and information between the phases (e.g. the same table/attribute named differently in diferent sections of the project)

 

Presentation

1. Lack of slides

2. Lack of actual presenting

3. Missing crucial parts of your projects during presentation

 


GRADES FOR FINAL TEST:

 

  Part 1 Exe. 5 Exe. 6 Exe. 7 Exe. 8.a. Exe. 8.b. Exe. 8.c. Exe. 8.d. TOTAL  
ALL 12 14 17 10 5 5 12 12 87 ALL
BIG 12 15 13 10 5 5 12 12 84 BIG
CRA 12 15 6 10 5 2 7 12 69 CRA
DEL 16 12 16 10 3 5 6 11 79 DEL
DIN 12 14 9 8 4 5 11 12 75 DIN
DOL 12 16 15 10 5 5 6 12 81 DOL
GAM 16 13 11 10 3 5 10 12 80 GAM
JZA 16 19 20 10 5 5 12 12 99 JZA
LOG 12 16 16 10 5 5 12 12 88 LOG
NOT 16 16 14 10 5 5 6 6 78 NOT
PRZ 16 19 19 10 3 5 6 12 90 PRZ
PUR 16 19 17 10 5 5 12 12 96 PUR
QUA 12 11 5 7 5 5 8 12 65 QUA
RAX 12 17 13 10 3 5 12 12 84 RAX
SEI 8 20 17 10 5 5 6 12 83 SEI
SIM 16 7 6 10 3 4 11 11 68 SIM
STU 16 14 13 8 5 5 6 12 79 STU
TIN 8 20 19 10 5 5 6 12 85 TIN
VIN 12 18 12 10 5 5 12 12 86 VIN
WEP 12 15 11 10 5 5 12 12 82 WEP
Max 16 20 20 10 5 5 12 12 99 Max
Min 8 7 5 7 3 2 6 6 65 Min
Avg 13.2 15.5 13.45 9.65 4.45 4.8 9.25 11.6 81.9 Avg
Med 12 15.5 13.5 10 5 5 10.5 12 82.5 Med