Re: It don't mean a thing ...
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:43:04 +0200
Message-ID: <40bf1ccf$0$566$e4fe514c_at_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 - 14:43:04 CEST