Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Simple Example, How To Model It In RM Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:44:06 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <5p68c15o229jo4rh7tk6l8er0m2ilrd7i4@4ax.com> Reply-To: Gene Wirchenko References: <1120059846.937064.161340@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1120064191.617967.251970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1120088629.182557.161880@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 62 Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:31850 On 29 Jun 2005 16:43:49 -0700, "Neo" wrote: >> "Because" is not a verb, it is a conjunction. > >The classification of 'because' as a verb in the example is a >simplification and the term is used loosely. Quite loosely, yes. >> You cannot (should not be able to) say "Sue because John", Right. You should complete the sentence, say "Sue because John defaulted on the contract." >> nor can you say "(Sue like John) friend (Sue like Mary)". You can if you use "friendly" as punctuation (using the term loosely) and do not worry about parentheses. With parenthetical insertions to show some context, one might end up with "Sue like John (with a lot of procedural nitpickery). Sue like Mary (with a lot of claims)." >You are correct from an English/Language perspective (I'm not too >concerned with constraints at this time). Akracy suxors! >> So you now have 5 "types": >> Person (e.g. "John") >> Verb (e.g. "likes") >> SimplePhrase (Person Verb Person e.g. "Mary likes John") >> Conjunction (e.g. "because") >> CompoundPhrase (SimplePhrase Conjunction SimplePhrase, >> e.g. "(Sue likes John) because (Mary isFriendOf John)") >> Do you agree? You may get up to first-grade level grammar yet. >I would agree that anything can have 0 to many classification (the >exact classification of a thing isn't too important to me at this >point). ackuracy realy suxorz! >> There is no point in trying to replicate a flawed design in RM! > >Feel free to model with more appropriate classifications. Yes, it is a good idea to do it right instead. >> Also, do you expect to be able to handle more complex statements like >> "((Sue likes John) and (Sue likes Mary)) because (Mary isFriendOf John)"? > >Yes, and if you would like to accommodate for those in the initial RM >schema/query, that would be OK. Why, thank you for your kind permission. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko