Clif: What distresses me about your comments is they are embedded with "should"s. There is no reason why &NEXT.AVAILABLE& style of counters "should not" be considered information; except that there are problems with the IT implementation of counters. There is no necessary accounting or auditing justification for such a position.
Despite what has been suggested, an accounting transaction is not like a disk address. To think so is to conceptualize accounting using IT norms; thus a lot can get lost in translation. For those who aren't familiar with the subject of accounting, some major misunderstandings can occur when using IT analysis models. Valid counters are just tools, nothing more. If the counters don't exist, that just means less tools are available. To suggest additional tools are meaningless and "should not" be used is, well, need I say more. :-) Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Clifton Oliver > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:55 PM > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: Re: [U2] Best practice for Sequential IDs using > TRANSACTION START & COMMIT/RO... > > Yes, that was the point. A record counter contains no > information about the record; it is an arbitrary pointer to > the information. Our U2 (and other MV) databases do not > provide for a key that is, to use some SQL implementation > terms, AUTO_INCREMENT or INTEGER GENERATED AS IDENTITY. > So we fake it with a &NEXT.AVAILABLE& style of counter. These > should not be considered information, nor should they be used > to verify during an audit. Think of them as disk addresses in > the old sequential sector address scheme. Saying that > transaction key 12345 has meaning is about as meaningful as > an auditor saying, "Why isn't there a transaction record at > track 99AEF?" (Yes, I meant the double meaning of meaning in > that last sentence. This is English, a language that makes up > in obscurity what it lacks in style.) > > So I maintain that a sequentially assigned RECORD COUNTER, is > not something an auditor should ascribe any meaning to. In > fact, record ID's used in this manner should be able to > change from day to day, assuming referential integrity is > maintained; and the auditor should not have an issue with > that. It just a "disk address," after all. > > Control numbers, on the other hand, are a completely different issue. > Even though they may be sequentially assigned, they contain > information about the record. Check number was a good > example. These may be used as the key to a file. But the > absence or presence of a single record in a single file > should not be the sole auditing criteria. Just because there > is a record with key "2045" in the CHECKS file doesn't mean > squat. I could have put that record in there with the Editor. > Any auditor who simply accepts that the record "proves" check > 2045 was issued is the one to be flogged. Conversely, the > absence of record with key 2045 cannot be construed to mean > the check was not issued. I am not an accountant, but I think > this falls under the category of single entry vs double entry > accounting. > > That being said, we also need to recognize differences in the > term "audit." Accounting audits are different from > information system audits. So when we use the term "the > Auditors" we really should specify whether we are talking > about accounting audits with an emphasis on fraud or > information systems audits with an expanded scope of correctness. > > As always, just my opinion. > > Anyone want to discuss why most MultiValue systems don't know > the concept of check digits on control numbers as a way to > assist in information correctness? <evil grin> > > > -- > > Regards, > > Clif > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > W. Clifton Oliver, CCP > CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES > Tel: +1 619 460 5678 Web: www.oliver.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > On Jun 16, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Drew Henderson wrote: > > > I would think the key phrase is "non-information content". > Sequential > > numbers that have meaning, such as check numbers, would not, in my > > mind, fall under this category. Sequential numbers used > for assigning > > ids to people, however, would likely fall into this category. > > > > Of course, a lot of it depends on the organization's use of that > > number, as to whether it is informational or not. > > > > Drew > > > > Bill Haskett wrote: > ------- > u2-users mailing list > u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
