Re: c.d.theory glossary - proposed preamble

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> "Senny" wrote:
>

>>Wat???  Ik begrijp niet.  Ik ken niet Lakatos, von Bertalanffy, Barthes,
>>en Canetti.  I wonder if I would understand your post better in Dutch.

Heel goed! :-)

> I think its just a mood

Maybe mostly. I don't think so, but I can't very well look at my writings from the outside. One thing is not mood, but a message I am trying to get across. It concerns method.

In order to get the glossary started with a chance of success, instead of (just) big individual statements we need a lot of small ones from many authors. (You already provided some.)

> and we can help by jumpstarting the vocabulary
> effort again. It shouldn't be too hard to get a primary definition for
> relation, for example, even if we have to have some secondary versions too.

Yep. But start, not, once again, not *jump* -start. It won't work (in this case).

> I just re-read an early Codd paper and he really does start with a pretty
> standard mathematical definition of a relation. It gets
> expanded/altered/corrupted over time to get to where it seems to be today.
> So, if we start with what a typical relational theory definition would be
> and then have "mathematical relation" as a standard mathematical def, we
> might get on a roll. Given I'm not exactly a relational theorist, I'll
> yield the floor to someone with more of a clue.
>
> Maybe start a separate thread for each word we define, with subject
> "Glossary - Relation" for example -- just a thought.

Heh. That is exactly what I tried with "Class" and "proposed preamble".

Tanpai! Received on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 09:23:24 CEST