Re: The word "symbol"

From: VC <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:30:34 -0400
Message-ID: <nIidnVABxuDJ9GDfRVn-qA@comcast.com>

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:42fd50e3$0$11068$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...

> VC wrote:

>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>>vc wrote:
>>>>David Cressey wrote:
>>>>>VC wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>When we confine ourselves to the realm of formal structures of which
>>>>database theory is an example, ...
>>>
>>>Ah! This creates perspective. I do not share this opinion.
>>>To me there is a part of database theory that deals with formal
>>>structures.
>>
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean ?
>>

>
> Your interest in databases is in the purely formal aspects, no?
> That is one, but not my main area of nice topics in database theory.
> Is that so difficult?

So you claim that, say, the relational model is only partially formal. What are the other "nice topics" in the RM which are not formal ?

>


>>>[snip]

>>>
>>>

>>>Semiotics is not applied to the study of formal systems
>>>per se but it does give handles to provide content,
>>>context, meaning and use of formal systems.
>>
>>
>> For example ?

>
> Why? Any example would by definiton be
> outside what you choose to be database theory.

Forget about my definitions (although they are not really mine but rather commonly accepted).
I am curious how semiotics "gives handles to provide content" for the RM ? Always eager to learn from my betters, please oblige. Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 22:30:34 CDT