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>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
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.
>>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.
"rather subjective and so somewhat irrelevant."
Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 00:23:42 CET