Re: c.d.theory glossary

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:59:08 -0500
Message-ID: <c5rgoe$eh6$>

"mAsterdam" <> wrote in message news:408100e6$0$21804$
> Timothy J. Bruce wrote:
> > `Formal Theory' should be included.
> >
> > The term `Formal Theory' will also REQUIRE:
> > ...
> > Object (n): `Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.'
> >
> > Because `Formal Theory' is included, we must EXCLUDE:
> > ...
> > Object in any sense other than above
> 'Object' is also used to mean (ISO):
> "model of an entity, characterised by behaviour and state.", with
> 'Entity' as "thing of interest".
> Would you object (heh) to that use?

"Object" might be a term where we need multiple definitions, hoping that it will either be explicit or clear from context what a person is referring to. If someone is referring to coding constraints in an OO language, they might use Object as an instantiation of a Class or in whatever way the particular language uses that term. If an anti-OO person uses the term, there might be a sarcastic bent to it.

In any case, "Object" will likely be the most difficult to define.

We might get further faster by knocking off a few of the perhaps easier ones. I think terms like "Relation" have some more general agreement (although I could be wrong). At the very least, there are only a couple of differences that one would find in mathematics in the use of the term "Relation" (e.g. some might define it as a couple only, rather than tuple, because without loss of generalization mathematically it could be handled that way where in relational theory it needs to be a tuple). We might need two definitions of relation, however -- one for a mathematical relation (where "function" is a sub-class) and one that tosses all of the spices in for relational database theory.

I suspect it wouldn't be hard to knock out "Type" either and state whether there is any difference between Type and Domain in our discussions. --dawn Received on Sat Apr 17 2004 - 16:59:08 CEST

Original text of this message