Re: Database-valued attributes?
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:06:07 -0500
Message-ID: <NqydnbqEFO6qei-iRVn-tw_at_golden.net>
"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:botpmf$ooe$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:GLadnaU5LYVh0i-iRVn-tg_at_golden.net...
> > "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
> > news:bot3ev$oqa$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> > > news:EZKdnUmgA62gjiyiRVn-tw_at_golden.net...
> > > > > poss rep with more than 1 component a tuple of those components,
or
> a
> > > > list, a set, an array or just 'a thing with components'?
> > > >
> > > > It is a possible representation. The remainder is internal.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Can't say I'm happy with such dereliction of definition though. I'd
like
> > to
> > > see the logical model cover such matters rather than leaving it to be
an
> > > 'internal' matter. Oh well.
> >
> > Physical independence is not a dereliction.
>
> One of us in the group said
>
> "I doubt Dijkstra would consider a division between applications and data
> management appropriate. I know he expressed skepticism regarding the
> division into conceptual, logical and physical."
>
> Has anyone got the quote? I think I share some of his skepticism...
As I recall, it was in one of his trip reports, but I could not find anything by searching so I assume that one has not been transcribed yet. Received on Thu Nov 13 2003 - 03:06:07 CET