need help not sure what to do
Piease modify this ERD based on the next nules: Phase II (15 pts) The database for the first phase cerainly provided only the basica. VC quickly determined that ho adstional featuros needed to be added to the database design. as folows (draw a revised ERD to ropresent the expanded second phase database). - From their accounht. persons might nmpond to postings with an asdiconal posting. Thus. pestings may lom threadi, or nehwork of muponte pestings, which then may have other tosporse postings and so forth. - In abso became importarit to track not anly postrys but also when penons from their accounts tead a posting. This requirement is needed to groduce site usage reports conceming when postings are made. when they are road and by whom, trequency of teading etc. Phase III (5 pts): - The third phase of darabase deveicgmert by vC deat wh ene of the harartis of social media simsinesponsiale, objectionable, or havmlid potings (n.:. bulyeng or inapgropriate langage). So, for the third phase, draw a rovised ERD to the ERD you drew for the iecond phase to represent the following: - Any person from one of their accounts muy flie a complant about any posting. Most podtings, of couns, are legitmate and not offensive, tul nome postinge geoerate lots of complaint. Each complaint has a Complaint id, Datefine the complaint is pooted, the Content of the complaint. and a Resolution Code. Complaints and tee statas of wuclubon avw visible to only the perion making the complaint and to the site athinistratser - The administrator for the site about which a conplart has been submithed (not necessarly a person in the database, and each ste may have a diffenent administrater) teviews complaints. If a complaint is worthy, the absociated oflenule poeting is marked at removed fom the ste; however, the posing stays in the database so thaz special reports can be produced to summarize complaints in various ways, such as by person, so ther persons who make repeated objectionabie pestings can be deat with in any case, the sibe adriniutrater afler his or her trview fils in the date of resolubion and the Resolution Code value for the complaint. As staked, only the ste administrator and the complaining peryon, not other persons with accounts on the sibe. see complaints for postings on the mesoialed aibe Fextings marked as removed as well as responses to these posings we then no longer usen by the ether personi. Please modify this ERD based on the next rules: Phase II (15 pts): - The database for the first phase certainly provided only the basics. VC quickly determined that two additional features needed to be added to the database design, as follows (draw a revised ERD to represent the expanded second phase database): - From their accounts, persons might respond to postings with an additional posting. Thus, postings may form threads, or networks of response postings, which then may have other response postings and so forth. - It also became important to track not only postings but also when persons from their accounts read a posting. This requirement is needed to produce site usage reports concerning when postings are made, when they are read and by whom, frequency of reading, etc. Phase III (5 pts): - The third phase of database development by VC dealt with one of the hazards of social media sitesirresponsible, objectionable, or harmful postings (e.g., bullying or inappropriate language). So, for the third phase, draw a revised ERD to the ERD you drew for the second phase to represent the following: - Any person from one of their accounts may file a complaint about any posting. Most postings, of course, are legitimate and not offensive, but some postings generate lots of complaints. Each complaint has a Complaint ID. Date/Time the complaint is posted, the Content of the complaint, and a Resolution Code. Complaints and the status of resolution are visible to only the person making the complaint and to the site administrator. - The administrator for the site about which a complaint has been submitted (not necessarily a person in the database, and each site may have a different administrator) reviews complaints. If a complaint is worthy, the associated offensive posting is marked as removed from the site: however, the posting stays in the database so that special reports can be produced to summarize complaints in various ways, such as by person, so that persons who make repeated objectionable postings can be dealt with. In any case, the site administrator after his or her review fills in the date of resolution and the Resolution Code value for the complaint. As stated, only the site administrator and the complaining person, not other persons with accounts on the site, see complaints for postings on the associated site. Postings marked as removed as well as responses to these postings are then no longer seen by the other persons. Piease modify this ERD based on the next nules: Phase II (15 pts) The database for the first phase cerainly provided only the basica. VC quickly determined that ho adstional featuros needed to be added to the database design. as folows (draw a revised ERD to ropresent the expanded second phase database). - From their accounht. persons might nmpond to postings with an asdiconal posting. Thus. pestings may lom threadi, or nehwork of muponte pestings, which then may have other tosporse postings and so forth. - In abso became importarit to track not anly postrys but also when penons from their accounts tead a posting. This requirement is needed to groduce site usage reports conceming when postings are made. when they are road and by whom, trequency of teading etc. Phase III (5 pts): - The third phase of darabase deveicgmert by vC deat wh ene of the harartis of social media simsinesponsiale, objectionable, or havmlid potings (n.:. bulyeng or inapgropriate langage). So, for the third phase, draw a rovised ERD to the ERD you drew for the iecond phase to represent the following: - Any person from one of their accounts muy flie a complant about any posting. Most podtings, of couns, are legitmate and not offensive, tul nome postinge geoerate lots of complaint. Each complaint has a Complaint id, Datefine the complaint is pooted, the Content of the complaint. and a Resolution Code. Complaints and tee statas of wuclubon avw visible to only the perion making the complaint and to the site athinistratser - The administrator for the site about which a conplart has been submithed (not necessarly a person in the database, and each ste may have a diffenent administrater) teviews complaints. If a complaint is worthy, the absociated oflenule poeting is marked at removed fom the ste; however, the posing stays in the database so thaz special reports can be produced to summarize complaints in various ways, such as by person, so ther persons who make repeated objectionabie pestings can be deat with in any case, the sibe adriniutrater afler his or her trview fils in the date of resolubion and the Resolution Code value for the complaint. As staked, only the ste administrator and the complaining peryon, not other persons with accounts on the sibe. see complaints for postings on the mesoialed aibe Fextings marked as removed as well as responses to these posings we then no longer usen by the ether personi. Please modify this ERD based on the next rules: Phase II (15 pts): - The database for the first phase certainly provided only the basics. VC quickly determined that two additional features needed to be added to the database design, as follows (draw a revised ERD to represent the expanded second phase database): - From their accounts, persons might respond to postings with an additional posting. Thus, postings may form threads, or networks of response postings, which then may have other response postings and so forth. - It also became important to track not only postings but also when persons from their accounts read a posting. This requirement is needed to produce site usage reports concerning when postings are made, when they are read and by whom, frequency of reading, etc. Phase III (5 pts): - The third phase of database development by VC dealt with one of the hazards of social media sitesirresponsible, objectionable, or harmful postings (e.g., bullying or inappropriate language). So, for the third phase, draw a revised ERD to the ERD you drew for the second phase to represent the following: - Any person from one of their accounts may file a complaint about any posting. Most postings, of course, are legitimate and not offensive, but some postings generate lots of complaints. Each complaint has a Complaint ID. Date/Time the complaint is posted, the Content of the complaint, and a Resolution Code. Complaints and the status of resolution are visible to only the person making the complaint and to the site administrator. - The administrator for the site about which a complaint has been submitted (not necessarily a person in the database, and each site may have a different administrator) reviews complaints. If a complaint is worthy, the associated offensive posting is marked as removed from the site: however, the posting stays in the database so that special reports can be produced to summarize complaints in various ways, such as by person, so that persons who make repeated objectionable postings can be dealt with. In any case, the site administrator after his or her review fills in the date of resolution and the Resolution Code value for the complaint. As stated, only the site administrator and the complaining person, not other persons with accounts on the site, see complaints for postings on the associated site. Postings marked as removed as well as responses to these postings are then no longer seen by the other persons
