Re: Database design

mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:

>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>>Mark Johnson wrote:

>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.

Because that latter requires some design, some scheme for the tables which are supposed to reflect relations in the RM, correct? And as you get more deeply committed to that structure, things you didn't anticipate in advance threaten to overwhelm any subsequent modification?

>>>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.

At some point, and I think I agreed with him, it is. The tone is a primitive. It is atomic and indivisible. It is represented perhaps with more than a single scalar, rather a tuple if you like. But as a practical matter, it would be treated differently than any subsequent component into which it was incorporated.

As I said:

>>>>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."

>- and yet the only foundation.

One also has to remember the overloaded meaning of words, the multiple definitions, and multiple terms applied to much the same things, all depending. Perhaps what they think unimportant is something else, entirely. They think they're talking about the same thing, even, and are not. Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 05:13:10 CET