Re: Latest version of glossary

dawn wrote:
> I tried to find the latest draft of the cdt glossary, but wasn't sure
> if I found the most recent one, so mAsterdam or anyone -- could you
> repost the glossary so we can perhaps add in some terms to help with
> some of these discussions?

Hmm... last time I tried to update the glossary was when somebody suggested an improvement for the NULL entry. After a few hundred posts I gave up (some of the threads are still expanding - sigh).

Some differences in the use of words run much deeper than we can hope to clear up with just some definitions and warning signposts.

Some discussions, after many sidetracks, are reducible to /just/ different meanings and connotations of a word. Such words are good glossary candidates. However, even writing such a relatively simple entry is not a trivial task (I'm not saying this to you, Dawn, you allready know. You made some very nice contributions IMO).

> We could maybe add dimension, entity, flat,
> and a few others.

dimension, flat: It's not just different connotation or meaning which leads to the longwinding talks without communication. Such differences could be resolved with just: "Ah, now I see what you meant by that; next time I'll be a little more careful in my choice of words".
No, these differences go down to deeply held strong opinions.

OTOH they might make the glossary a nicer read. It would be overreaching the glossaries original goal, but maybe if I see something copy & pastable I'll add an entry

>
> For example (just off the top of my head -- these should be improved
> upon):
>
> entity: a thing of interest
>
> Note: this term is often used when doing conceptual data modeling.
> When it is used with a particular product, technique, or technology,
> such as XML, refer to the use of the term within that "namespace" using
> an adjective, such as "XML entity" to distinquish it from the more
> generic use of the term.
>
> (we could possibly add in strong and weak entity)

Why? Any misunderstandings, lately?

> dimension:
> 1) A relation R is of dimension n if each tuple in R is an n-tuple
> 2) An n-dimensional data structure, S, is one where each element of S
> can be uniquely addressed as S[i1][i2]...[in]
>
> Note: Because a table in a SQL-DBMS can be modeled as a mathematical
> relation where the dimension is as in 1) above, and can also be
> manipulated using a general purpose programming language with the
> dimension using 2) above being equal to 2, there can be confusion when
> using this term. In this forum, use definition 1) freely and try to
> either avoid 2) or be very clear, such as "2D array," when employing
> def 2).
>
> flat: an object which by any definition could be considered as 2
> dimensional might informally be called flat.
>
> Note: any use of the term flat tends to be seen as inflammatory by
> someone, so take care to use it only when intending to inflame ;-)

This all looks very copy & pastable :-) Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 22:24:59 CET