Re: Database design

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:23:42 +0100
Message-ID: <43fcf27d$0$11063$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>


Mark Johnson wrote:
> mAsterdam 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?

The steps to take from the facttypes to a workable structure is not entirely trivial, but eventually, yes.

The database way (nothing RM specific here) works ok for a lot of similar facts (same or similar facttypes). It doesn't work well for dissimilar facts (a lot of different facttypes) or facttypes you don't know in advance.

>>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.

A few seconds ago I thought you got the point, now I have doubts again. /You/ (the designer) decide what is primitive and what isn't, it is not a given thing.

>>>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.

"rather subjective and so somewhat irrelevant."

Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 00:23:42 CET

Original text of this message