Re: domain questionnaire

On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:12:12 GMT, "Scot A. Becker" <scotb_at_inconcept.com> wrote:
>> Role == Relationship?
>
>Sometimes, but not quite.

From your posting and Jan Hidders, I see that the role is a typed relationship, the type carrying some semantic weight.

Yes, well, that seems like a good idea, and there have been periods in which I was all for such things. However, early on, I noted that some early AI work based on such was later characterized even by its creators, as quickly becoming so complex that it could not be read, even by its creators. These days, I approach such models with heavy skepticism.

>It is a good trick. Essentially, ORM's use of elementary facts maps out the
>FD's, and thus algorithms can be applied to make it "optimally normalized".

Groan.

Y'see, my problem is, I don't really believe in "facts". One can normalize a database by turning a crank, true. But there are many perspectives in the real world, each of which might require a different data model, each of which might represent a given real-world object in different terms, with different "facts". Language like "optimally normalized" gives me the willies. I think that the boundary between world and application is an entirely different exercise than that kind of phrasing suggests.

J. Received on Sat Feb 24 2001 - 20:58:10 CET