Re: It don't mean a thing ...

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:43:04 +0200
Message-ID: <40bf1ccf$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

mountain man wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>>mountain man wrote:
[snip]
> Your line of argument appears to be setting up a polarity
> such that data either has, or has not, meaning intrinsic to
> itself, and I dont know that this is the best approach.

You are right about that.
I don't see any benefits in this particular vagueness.

[big snip]
> One grain of sand does not form a beach. One bit of data
> itself has little meaning. It is rather the collective of all data
> that possesses greater notion of meaning.

[big snip]

>> > and that it may be --- in some instances --
>> > not appropriate to separate the distinction.
>>
>>I'm curious about your thoughts on that.

>
> Only that database integrity is a maintenance task.
> Change is natural. Updating the database to reflect
> the external world is necessary if you have not been
> in communication with the external world (for a
> specific subset of clients, for example) recently.

<quote>
"The database is not the database - the log is the database, and the database is just an optimized access path to the most recent version of the log."

B.M. Schueler </quote>

> BTW, thanks for the refences to
> http://www.essentialstrategies.com
> I look forward to reading this stuff.
> Interesting stuff.

You are welcome. Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 07:43:04 CDT