Re: MV counterexample

x wrote:
> "x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4099fc71@post.usenet.com...

>>"Karel Miklav" <karel_at_inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message
>>>my point was, there is no inherent structure in data. We treat
>>>characters in a string and numbers in an array like they are somehow
>>>connected by invisible ties which preserve their order/structure, but
>>>they're not, they're only conencted in our haeds. There are reasons to
>>>optimize, but the structure is not one of them, rather a way.
>>
>>So you say that each "atomic" piece of data is (should be) self contained?

There is no structure and it implies atomicity too, but for practical purposes we can't escape the realities of bits and integers and constraints of our projects.

>>Is this possible ? Wouldn't we end up with one big chunk of data ?

You mean, like it's in our (head)?

>>Or do you argue that all integrity constraints should belong to user space >>(in the user schema or in the user application) ?

Multiple constraints are pain in the ass, as I gave a hint in the original post, but can't even help myself around this.

> Or something like this:
> Data is only data. Meaning of data is not data.
> Computers are very good at storing data.
> Humans are better than computers at interpreting data.
> So all we need is to let humans and computers do what they are good at.

I meant data as the word is known in the IT community not as an object of a philosophical diatribe. Every operation in the computer is an interpretation of it's current internal state, so what am I supposed to say?

Regards,
Karel miklav Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 13:25:01 CEST