I think I agree with Doc_Man on this.Especially the line...[snip]...My design standard is holistic and the naming convention is, indeed, a major contributor to the readability of the sample schemas. The use of meaninful keys would undermine the naming conventions (and has done in the meaningful schema that does not, and cannot meet my design standard) and I did qualify these points appropriately. But this is not the point being discussed - we're focusing merely upon the advantages and disadvantages of meaningless/meaningful keys. The example simply illustrates that wheter either approach is more readable is in the eye of the beholder (iow it is subjective)....[snip]...
Everyone needs to follow a formal NAMING convention. Yours certainly has its merits, but there others that are good as well.
However, the CONTENTS of the fields and the NAMES of the fields are two distinct things.
The top structure of your .jpg can be followed PRECISELY and still employ MF keys (unless your arbitrary naming convention requires that nnnID fields only be autonumbers).
I think I'm going to have to agree with some of the other posters here. Although you have been stating that your intent is to fully examine MF vs ML key usage, your responses only seem interested in supporting arguments for meaningless keys, and you dispute ANY comments supporting meaningful keys.
I respectfully suggest that YOU read your posts again, because Doc_Man's comments are right on. What you meant to say, and what you said, may not be quite the same here!You need to read my post again!