Re: Multi Valued Interface Models?

x wrote:
> > > > I think this is something like what mountain man is suggesting by
> using
> > > > stored procedures. You still cannot model the UI with the RM,
> however.
> > >
> > > Why ?
>
> > See if you can step into a place where the following sentence makes
> > sense: A View in MVC is backed by a Model which could be illustrated by
> > one or more UML class diagrams, and this View also has a model as
> > illustrated by a single UML class diagram.
>
> I give up. You are equating the UML used for a class diagram for an MVC View
> with the model in "a relational model (view) of data.

Don't give up yet. I'm working on writing it differently. I think that introducing Model, as in MVC, is causing problems, but suspect it is more that you are not seeing models, particularly logical data models, everywhere that I am seeing them.

> All the data in a MVC is in the Model part of it.

No, it isn't. It has to cross from the Model part into that interface between the software and the user called the View. That View has a logical model of the data associated with it.

> The View part is just painting (output) .

It is all just representation (input and output for some interface). If you separate "data model" from "storage" what is it? It is representation of a structure in an interface.

I am very aware it is hard to get people to think differently about this. Discussions of data models have been so tied to databases that it is diffcult to use those same terms (which I want to do because it is the same definition) and apply them in other places.

Perhaps if you provide a definition of data model as in "relational data model" without using the term "database" in your definition, then I will have more clues on why we have a gap between what I am saying and what you are hearing. Thanks. --dawn Received on Tue Feb 14 2006 - 14:03:35 CET