Re: Date's First Great Blunder

From: Eric Kaun <>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:15:25 GMT
Message-ID: <xZgfc.268$>

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <> wrote in message news:c5jopp$hdq$
> There is not
> one correct mathematical model for data, metadata, nor functions (by
> whatever names).

"Correct"? Is that even possible?

> > Many people confuse a class with its definition.
> Me, for exampe. The term is used both ways. I prefer to think of a class
> as a specification for (that is, metadata regarding) a domain/type. What
> can "see" of the class is a specification "in writing" (e.g.
> and a compiled version of that spec (e.g. MyType.class). The set of
> that could be instantiated by way of this specification of the type is
> abstract. So, I prefer using the term "class" as a definition/spec of a
> type and the term "type" as the more abstract (invisible) set. I think
> helps avoid some of the confusion in terms, perhaps, maybe, a little bit.

So a class is simply an implementation of a type? That seems to be what you're getting at.

> > No, code does not have any relationship with metadata.
> really? What about the declarative code that specifies constraints on the
> data -- is that metadata? If the same information is in a procedural
> language, does it cease to be metadata at that point?

Yes, I'd say so. The line between "procedural" and "declarative" may be somewhat hard to define (at least I haven't seen a formal definition), though most of us would know either to see it.

  • erk
Received on Wed Apr 14 2004 - 22:15:25 CEST

Original text of this message