Re: The BOOLEAN data type
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:53:57 -0400
Message-ID: <Iatka.107$jC6.12302400_at_mantis.golden.net>
"Paul" <paul_at_not.a.chance.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.18fbb01cd7e3b1029896bd_at_news1.eircom.net...
>
> bbadour_at_golden.net says...
>
> > > What about a field HasYChromosome - and please don't tell me about
> > > various chromosomal disorders that can lead to attributes of maleness
> > > despite having no Y chromosome or vice versa - this has little
relevance
> > > in the real world.
>
> > HasYChromosome is properly boolean. One must presume that the business
rules
> > do not need to record multiple Y chromosomes,
>
> And there would be precious few apps that would need this!
So says you. I have worked on applications for genetic counsellors, and they might disagree. With ever more rapid advances in medicine and in understanding human genetics, this sort of thing will only get more important.
Someday, someone might have to design a data model for an application that accounts for chimeras as well. While rare, such people do exist.
> > and that the application cares
> > more about what the chromosomes say than what the sexual organs say--or
what
> > the person says, for that matter. Someone transgendered from female to
male
> > might not have a Y chromosome, but might use the mens room.
>
> But would call themselves "male" and look "reasonably" male and have
> something resembling a willy and use the men's room and be able to sleep
> in the male dorm - even if they were lacking in the willy dept., there's
> nothing obliging people to strip off in dorms.
You can make up whatever requirements you want to try to justify your bad design suggestion. Neither male nor female is true and HasYChromosome necessarily help you to assign dormitories.
I would suggest a Dormitory domain and an AssignedDormitory attribute. That way, you could have as many dormitories as you need and assign them any number of ways.
> > > This is essentially meaningless in the real world - "You've just had a
> > > baby - boy or girl?" - not "Is it male, female, partially
transgendered,
> > > gender reassigned male to female, gender reassigned female to male,
> > > unknown etc."
>
>
> > You presume much. I would argue that those struggling with the legal and
> > social ramifications of transgender surgery--in the real world--would
> > disagree with your broad generality.
>
>
> I am writing an application for the real world, not the far out
> scenarios you are describing.
In your real-world application, neither male nor female is true and HasYChromosome will not suffice for assigning dormitories. In any case, I was addressing your sweeping generality regarding meaning in the real world and not the specific requirements of your application, which are of course just as meaningless to most of the real world.
> > > Knowing the sex of the person in the case of an app I'm working on at
> > > the moment is important, since it is potentially necessary for
possible
> > > dormitory sleeping arrangements - i.e. the boys sleep in dorms with
> > > other boys and vice versa.
>
>
> > Where do you put the intersexed children? At 1:1000 to 1:500, your
> > application will probably have to deal with the situation eventually:
> > http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aissg/intersexq&a.htm
>
>
> Intersexes generally resemble one or the other and are treated as such.
What if the intersexed child protests?
> > Where do you put the sexually aggressive abuse survivors?
> > http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/expose_y.htm
>
> If one wanders in off the street to join a Youth Hostel Organisation, I
> doubt if anyone's going to ask me about any history of sexual abuse.
In that case, it might be safer to arrange sleeping arrangements some other way.
> > What does the implication function mean for gender?
>
> Eh?
> > > What about a table which stores bills? Paid or unpaid - that's a
fairly
> > > simple and important example of a boolean.
>
> > I agree, and I would observe that the boolean functions actually have
some
> > meaning for "paid" as in the following boolean expression:
> > (invoiced and not paid)
>
> Indeed, which is why I asked in the first place.
That wasn't what you asked in the first place--at least not the first place I saw. In the first place, you asked why boolean is an inappropriate domain for gender. You don't seem particularly willing to accept the answer to the question, though. Received on Tue Apr 08 2003 - 06:53:57 CEST