Re: database systems and organizational intelligence

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 00:40:32 +0200
Message-ID: <40b66e5f$0$34762$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>


Alan wrote:

> Hell, with a big enough hammer you can smash any square peg into a round
> hole, but that don't make the peg round.
> 
> Okay, you both win. I give up. As Dorothy Parker said when asked to use the
> word, "horticulture" in a sentence, "You can lead a horticulture, but you
> can't make her think."

Sorry you feel that way.
I may have presented things somewhat harsh. The invitation is still open (see below).

>>[snip]
>>
>>>Terrific, but this discipline is Relational Database Theory, and
>>>while derived from mathematics, we have our own definitions.
>>>Best to use _those_.
>>
>>Ok. Which? Where do they differ?
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>Types, Constraints, and other Rules for the data.
>>>>This is where OO starts to come in to play, but we are talking
>>>>about Relational Theory, not OO. This is a whole 'nother can of

> 
> worms...
> 

>>Well, yes. But I don't mind getting my hands dirty.
>>The use of exclusive terminology alienates "the other camp".
>>I am trying to avoid that.
>>
>>I once heard about the OO smokescreen conspiracy -
>>there is a relational smokescreen conspiracy as well.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>The cdt glossary was written by whom? They have what credentials?
>>
>>By you, your credentials, if you care to contribute.
Received on Fri May 28 2004 - 00:40:32 CEST

Original text of this message