Database-and-Web-Database-Systems-CT014-3-2

Marking Scheme Version 4 Page 1 o 3

DTWDS Marking Scheme Group Assignment

!ro"# $o% &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Group Component Total : _______ /25 PART A: Group Marks (30%)
FAIL
No/little evidence of documenation / hardcopy submitted

'ntake% &&&&&&&&&&&&

MARGINAL FAIL
Major missing components, poor document content and standards. Incomplete deliverables.

PASS
Average documentation with logical errors. Irregular standards applied. Partially missing contents & )atabase implemented with minimal integrity constraints. +ustifications given but poor. ,eferential Integrity has error, tables partially matches -,) proposed ' 0 Average Menu / 4oolbars. *ecurity enabled but not well integrated. Minor errors or functionality constraints. )atabase connections and data mgmt partialy complete.

CREDIT
ery minimal errors in formats and standard of documentation. All content fully documented according to re!uirements , minor issues on refferences. &.' )atabase implemented with appropriate integrity constraints but with some minor errors and/or omissions. -,) proposed matches the table implemented. 1 5ood user interface, toolbars and menu. 5ood reporting /form structure. All web forms integrated. Minor error on functionalities.

DISTINCTION
"uality document with no errors in formats and standard of documentation. All content fully documented according to re!uirements , well refferenced. ( ' )atabase implemented with almost comprehensive integrity constraints and good justifications provided. .ell/structured table implementation reflecting -,). 2 3 $#

Docum !"a"#o!

Marks

# $ No/little evidence in documentation or softcopy.

% )atabase implemented but contains no integrity constraints and/or contains major errors. No justifications given. *chema not documented. ( Part of the web forms integrated with database connection errors. Minimal / incomplete system.

Da"a$as R %a"#o!a% Sc& ma

Marks

# $ % & No integration of webforms, no database connectivity or major limitation on functionality

' $ App%#ca"#o! ( Da"a$as

-6cellent system produced with well/ structured from/reports and data representation. *tandards applied on all webfom

(e)e* 2

2013

Database-and-Web-Database-Systems-CT014-3-2

Marking Scheme Version 4 Page 2 o 3

Marks Comments:

# $ % &

' 0

2 3

$#

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________

St"dent $ame + 'D % &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

PART )7 Individual Mar8s 91#:;

'ndi)id"a* Score%&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
PASS
)emonstrates ade!uate understanding of the problem. *ome e6planations given but li8ely to be insufficient to demonstrate that the student understands to a reasonable depth. ' 0 Minimal business rules stated with missing constraints and important analysis. & -,) contains some errors and/or omissions of attributes = constraints. Assumptions acceptable with limitation 0 1 Minor errors in mapping. Most relations will be in &N> but there may be some normalisation issues. Integration of system relational model has limitation 0 1

FAIL
)emonstrates poor understanding of problem. -6planations will be limited and li8ely to be insufficient to demonstrate that the student understands the wor8. # $ % & <usiness rules missing or irrelavant to case study and database design proposed # $ No evidence in report or softcopy/ Incomplete -,) / individual relation missing # $ % & ( No/little evidence in documentation or softcopy. *tudent did not attempt normalisation. # $ % & (

MARGINAL FAIL
)emonstrates limited understanding of problem. -6planations will be limited but sufficient to demonstrate that the student has some very basic understanding of the problem. ( Major limitation on business rules / incorrect analysis on case study. Incomplete business rules % -,) missing major constraints = attributes. Assumptions do not reflect the scenario as a complete system. ' Mapping and normalisation contain many errors and/or omissions. )oes not reflect the group relational model '

CREDIT
)emonstrates good understanding of the problem. *atisfactory e6planations given and will be able to demonstrate that the student understands to a reasonable depth. 1 5ood analysis on functionalities = constraints. Ade!uate assumptions. Minor error found &.' -,) has minor errors. Assumptions logical but has limitations on relationship. 2 3 Mapping done correctly but there may be some minor errors and/or omissions in the normalisation illustration. 2 3

DISTINCTION
)emonstrates e6cellent understanding of the problem. 5ood e6planations given and will be able to demonstrate in/depth understanding of the wor8 2 3 $# -6cellent business rule statement. )emonstrated critical analysis ( ' -,) contains hardly any errors. Assumptions logical and comprehensive. $# $$ $% No errors in the mapping and normalisation carried out correctly with appropriate e6planations. $# $$ $%

*!+ rs"a!+#!, ( Pro$% m A!a%-s#s

Marks )us#! ss ru% s Marks

ER Mo+ %%#!,

Marks

Norma%#.a"#o! a!+ %o,#ca% mapp#!,

Marks

(e)e* 2

2013

Database-and-Web-Database-Systems-CT014-3-2

Marking Scheme Version 4 Page 3 o 3

Da"a D#c"#o!arMarks S/L 0 Da"a D 1#!#"#o! La!,ua, Marks S/L 0 Da"a Ma!#pu%a"#o! La!,ua, Marks

No evidence of data dictionary / entities missing / no features described by the data dictionary # $ ))A not attempted. BB Cr no participation evidence in table development # $ )MA not attempted. BB Cr no participation evidence in web !uery development # $ % & ( Poor !uality web forms. Dnable to show client server connection. No ?,D) operation. Major attributes missing

?ontains minimal description of the database and the entities. @ardly any constraints found % ))A attempted but does not function correctly.

Moderate representation with some elements missing in features. & 4able definition created with minimal settings. ?onstraints on attributes partially / not implemented & "uery functions correctly. Allows searching by single field only. *earch results poorly displayed. 0 1 Average web form functions. Integrated with main system menu. ?,D) operations wor8ing well with minor validation errors. *uitable attributes found.

% )MA "uery attempted but does not function correctly.

' $ Form

' *ystem able to produce minimal ?,D) operation. *ome operations wor8s with evidence of records. .eb forms have no validations. Minimal attributes found '

Marks

# $ % & (

0 1

5ood description of entities with some e6planation on constraints, attributes and attribute values ( 4able definition found with appropriate constraints and complete attributes. )ata types = formats not well used ( "uery functions correctly. Allows searching by multiple fields = tables. *earch results not/well displayed. 2 3 .eb forms enable ?,D) operation. @as validation. *ufficient web forms to meet major scope of assignment / functionality. Integrated with main system with minor authentication or data mgmt issues. 2 3

-6cellent encode of entities with relevant features, constraints, attributes and attribute values ' 0 -6cellent data definition with appropriate constraints, data types, formats and integrity rules applied ' 0 "uery functions correctly. Allows searching by multiple fields = tables. *earch results well displayed. $# $$ $% -6cellent form. .ell integrated. ?onforms to all ?,D) operation and reporting. -6cellent data mgmt.

$# $$ $%

(e)e* 2

2013