Re: Database design

mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:

>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> .... For all intents, a component or concept
>> can itself become a leaf or black box. An atom or unit. An item.

>Yes. It depends on your point of view. In which facts are you
>interested? Your answer to this question determines which facts you are
>going to preserve. Now in database design, you have to decedide
>beforehand which type of facts you are interested in.

And which is because you must define the set of sets/relations, and their external linking, correct? You must fix a structure to which subsequent data will be tied?

>time you decide what you consider atomic, or something containing other
>things, or both.

I might tend to agree with Savinov, that atoms/elements are those things analogous to primitives; tones, spheres, rotation, a single controller scalar, and so on. But fundamentally, these are components themselves. Maybe it's the distinction between components and initial/primitives components.

>> any item can be a component, and has some limited meaning and utility
>> by itself, by its very definition. The tone middle-C is still
>> middle-C. In the same example, I can see, however, that one might wish
>> to distinguish such elementary building blocks as a controller scalar
>> from a full run of such. Still, I don't know. I suppose as a practical
>> matter, one would only reference a component but have to refer to
>> items in a different fashion.

>It depends on which things in the world you label 'Entity'
>(definition: thing of interest).

And I suppose to recall some of the response to this in this and other threads, to some degree - to some degree - it might seem rather subjective and so somewhat irrelevant. But sometimes definitions can matter, particularly in slurry of multiple contexts and senses. Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 21:07:27 CET