>
>TABLE.iTABLE? Isn't that redundant? If you ask me, its not very precise either. Why not TABLE.id and TABLE.name. ACtually as nice in theory as that is, I prefer to do TABLE.id_TBL (Shortened version of TABLE) that way, your relationshipd are easier to match. But .name is still a better idea than just renaming it after the table:
>
>EMPLOYEE.Name
>ITEMS.Name
>MANUFACTURER.Name
>SUPPLIER.Name


My PK field is always name TableId, so in a Customer table, it would be CustomerID. That fieldname flows through to all other tables that use it. Also, I never, ever use underscore. Too difficult to type. I can use upper/lower case to differentiate enough.