SQl Fiddle
rrmdushka
20160816131322default__1__1.pdf
Evaluation Results
Author: Josiah Lorusso
Date Evaluated: 08/05/2016 10:18:10 AM (MDT)
DRF template: IT Management of Data Application (UG, C170, VHT10116)
Program: IT Management of Data Application (UG, C170, VHT10116)
Evaluation Method: Using Rubric
Evaluation Summary for ITManagement of Data Application: VHT Task 1
Final Score: Does not Meet
Overall comments: Please confer with a course mentor prior to working further on the submission.
8/5/16 The submission includes a great start on designing a database and structuring the code. A few aspects needs to be revised in order to meet the task instructions and rubric.
**Note: On several aspects we made our best attempt to highlight the aspects that are missing. Because some aspects have several parts that could not be located and as revisions are made things will change, other issues may be found in future resubmissions. We highly recommend that you work with your course mentor to ensure that all aspects are being addressed.
Detailed Results (Rubric used: VHT Task 1 (0116))
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics)
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response.
The candidate provides weak articulation of response.
The candidate provides adequate articulation of response.
Criterion Score: 3.00
A1a. Table in First Normal form
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide a table in first normal form that fulfills the given requirements.
The candidate provides a table in first normal form that fulfills some of the given requirements or is inaccurate.
The candidate provides a table in first normal form that fulfills the given requirements and is accurate.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a customer table on page 1. A 1NF diagram could not be located.
A1ai. Explanation for First Normal Form
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the table was designed.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with insufficient detail, of how the table was designed.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with sufficient detail, of how the table was designed.
Printed on: 08/16/2016 09:11:40 AM (EST)
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission discusses the customer table. A look at the construction of the 1NF diagram could not be located.
A1b. Table in Second Normal Form
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide tables in second normal form that fulfill the given requirements.
The candidate provides tables in second normal form that fulfill some of the given requirements or are inaccurate.
The candidate provides tables in second normal form that fulfill the given requirements and are accurate.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes 3 tables on page 2. A 2NF diagram could not be located.
A1bi. Explanation for Second Normal Form
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the tables were designed.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with insufficient detail, of how the tables were designed.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with sufficient detail, of how the tables were designed.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission discusses the 3 tables on page 2. A look at the construction of the 2NF diagram could not be located.
A1c. Normalized Table in Third Normal Form
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide tables in third normal form that fulfill the given requirements.
The candidate provides tables in third normal form that fulfill some of the given requirements or are inaccurate.
The candidate provides tables in third normal form that fulfill the given requirements and are accurate.
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a diagram with the correct tables for 3NF. The date field could not be located and the FKs could not be located. Also, the PK selection on the order line table needs revision and the order line table has a field not found in the sales order form.
A1ci. Explanation for 3rd Normal Form
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the table was designed.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with insufficient detail, of how the table was designed.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with sufficient detail, of how the table was designed.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission indicated that the tables are in 3NF and that there are no transitive dependencies. The submission needs more specific details on how the 3NF diagram was constructed.
B1. ER Diagram: Entities for Tables
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with entities that represent each of the tables from the third normalized form.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with entities that inaccurately represent each of the tables from the third normalized form, or all the tables are not represented.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with entities that accurately represent each of the tables from the third normalized form.
Criterion Score: 3.00
Printed on: 08/16/2016 09:11:40 AM (EST)
Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes the correct tables for 3NF in the ER diagram.
B2. ER Diagram: Appropriate Fields
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with all appropriate fields entered into each of the entities.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with appropriate fields entered into each of the entities, but some fields are illogical or missing.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with all appropriate fields logically entered into each of the entities.
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes most of the fields from the sales order form in the ER diagram. Some of the data fields from the sales order form could not be located and the order line table has a field not found in the sales order form.
B2a. ER Diagram: Primary Keys and Foreign Keys
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with primary keys and foreign keys designated.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with inaccurate or illogical primary keys and foreign keys designated.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with logical and accurate primary keys and foreign keys designated.
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The keys are correct on 3 tables. The PK selection needs to be revised on the order line table.
B2b. ER Diagram: Data Types
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with data types designated for each attribute.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with inaccurate or illogical data types designated for each attribute.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with accurate and logical data types designated for each attribute.
Criterion Score: 3.00
B3. ER Diagram: Relationships Labeled
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with relationships drawn between the entities accurately labeled with a relationship name.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with relationships drawn between the entities inaccurately labeled with a relationship name.
The candidate provides an entity relationship diagram, using tables designed in third normal form from part A1c, with relationships drawn between the entities accurately labeled with a relationship name.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a complete set of relationships within the ER diagram.
B4a. Explanation of Selection of Entities
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of why the entities represented in the diagram were selected.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with insufficient detail, of why the entities represented in the diagram were selected.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with sufficient detail, of why the entities represented in the diagram were selected.
Printed on: 08/16/2016 09:11:40 AM (EST)
Criterion Score: 3.00
B4b. Explanation of Relationships Between Entities
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the relationship between the entities was determined.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with insufficient detail, of how the relationship between the entities was determined.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with sufficient detail, of how the relationship between the entities was determined.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission discusses simulation of business processes to find the relationships.
B4c. Explanation of Types of Relationships or Cardinality
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of the types of relationships or cardinality used in the diagram.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with insufficient detail, of the types of relationships or cardinality used in the diagram.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with sufficient detail, of the types of relationships or cardinality used in the diagram.
Criterion Score: 3.00
C1. SQL Code:Tables
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide the SQL code written for each table.
The candidate provides inaccurate or illogical SQL code written for each table.
The candidate provides accurate and logical SQL code that was written for each table.
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a set of CREATE statements. The state field could not be located in the SQL code and the PKs in the SQL code for the order line table needs to be revised.
C1a. Tables: Screenshot of SQL Code Results
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not demonstrate that the code from part C1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Not applicable. The candidate demonstrates that the code from part C1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a screenshot of the current CREATE statements. This aspect will need to be updated once the SQL code is revised.
D1. SQL Code:“View” for Customer Information
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide the SQL code written for the “View” for customer information.
The candidate provides inaccurate or illogical SQL code written for the “View” for customer information.
The candidate provides accurate and logical SQL code written for the “View” for customer information.
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a VIEW that concatenates the customer's name. The other data points for a customer could not be located in the VIEW.
D1a. “View”: Screenshot of SQL Code Results
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
Printed on: 08/16/2016 09:11:40 AM (EST)
The candidate does not demonstrate that the code from part D1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Not applicable. The candidate demonstrates that the code from part D1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a screenshot of the current VIEW statement. This aspect will need to be updated once the SQL code is revised.
E1. SQL Code:“Index” of Donut Information
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide the SQL code written to create the “Index” for donut information.
The candidate provides inaccurate or illogical SQL code written to create the “Index” for donut information.
The candidate provides accurate and logical SQL code written to create the “Index” for donut information.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes an INDEX named donut_name_idx.
E1a. “Index”: Screenshot of SQL Code Results
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not demonstrate that the code from part E1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Not applicable The candidate demonstrates that the code from part E1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Criterion Score: 3.00
F1. SQL Code:Data Population
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide the SQL code written to insert data into the tables.
The candidate provides inaccurate or illogical SQL code written to insert data into the tables.
The candidate provides accurate and logical SQL code written to insert data into all of the tables.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a set of INSERT statements that are based on the current CREATE statements. This aspect will need to be updated once the CREATE statements are revised.
F1a. Data: Screenshot of SQL Code Results
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not demonstrate that the code from part F1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Not applicable. The candidate demonstrates that the code from part F1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a screenshot of the current INSERT statements. This aspect will need to be updated once the SQL code is revised.
G1. SQL Code:Simple (sfw) Queries
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide SQL code written for the simple (sfw) queries to display the data in the tables that were created and populated.
The candidate provides inaccurate or illogical SQL code written for simple (sfw) queries to display the data in the tables that were created and populated.
The candidate provides accurate and logical SQL code written for the simple (sfw) queries to display all of the data in each of the tables that were created and populated.
Criterion Score: 3.00
Printed on: 08/16/2016 09:11:40 AM (EST)
G1a. Simple (sfw) Queries: Screenshot of SQL Code Results
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not demonstrate that the code from part G1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Not applicable. The candidate demonstrates that the code from part G1 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 While the SQL code for the SELECT statements will not need to be updated, the screenshots will once the CREATE and INSERT statements are revised.
G2. SQL Code:Complex Join Query
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not provide the SQL code written for the complex join query to display information contained in the attached “Sales Order Form.”
The candidate provides inaccurate or illogical SQL code written for a complex join query to display information contained in the attached “Sales Order Form.”
The candidate provides accurate and logical SQL code written for a complex join query to display all of the information contained in the attached “Sales Order Form.”
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a complex query based on the current CREATE statements. This aspect will need to be updated once the CREATE statements are revised.
G2a. Complex Join Query: Screenshot of SQL Code Results
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not demonstrate that the code from part G2 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Not applicable. The candidate demonstrates that the code from part G2 was tested by providing a screenshot of the results.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 8/5/16 The submission includes a screenshot of the current complex query. This aspect will need to be updated once the SQL code is revised.
H. Submission Format
(1) 1=Not Evident (2) 2=Approaching Competence (3) 3=Competent
The candidate does not submit parts A–G as a *.pdf (Portable Document Format) to TaskStream.
Not applicable. The candidate submits parts A–G as a *.pdf (Portable Document Format) to TaskStream.
Criterion Score: 3.00
Printed on: 08/16/2016 09:11:40 AM (EST)
