>The term RI is somewhat overused in my oppinion. Reason again is historical. It all used to be in the database container. But that's not true anymore. The scenaio grew a little more complex.

Marcus,

I would disagree a small bit here, I would say that the term RI is often misused and this discussion is an example of its misuse. Referential Integrity is a relational database issue and only a relational database issue. This discussion is talking about business rules that relate to relationships.

If one considers the entire issue of RI in the relational database then it involves more than rules as to what to do when database events occur. It also requires that the FK be the same datatype and size of the PK it refers to, for example. It involves the defining or non-defining nature of the relationship.

A somewhat rhetorical question, "is it possible for the business rules to be intact when the databse contains an invlaid reference somewhere?" I know it is true that the database can be intact while a business rule is not valid, but what about the other way around?