Re: Reflections of a beautiful mind... Fundamental principle: Separation of Concerns
From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:06:31 GMT
Message-ID: <H5E3g.16140$vy1.3095_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For instance, the third principle would seem to argue strongly
>>>>> against null and n-vl.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But isn't that the very technique (combinatorial explosion) that
>>>> D+D propose with D?
>>>
>>>
>>> You have lost me here. How have they introduced a cominatorial
>>> explosion of special cases?
>>
>>
>> Nothing said about "special" cases - FWICT they were exploding
>> combinatorially for the general case.
>>
>> I was referring to the slides Darwen presented at Warwick Uni some
>> time ago - "Missing info without nulls" which I perhaps erroneously
>> associated with their TTM.
>>
>> I particularly like the foot note on page 9 ...
>> <quote>
>> Nothing wrong with the predicates now! And we have reduced the salary
>> part of the database to the simplest possible terms. Yes, some of the
>> complicated queries get more difficult now, because we might have to
>> combine these tables back together again, but the simple queries, such
>> as “How much salary does each person (who has a known salary) earn?” and
>> “Who earns no salary?” become trivial.
>> </quote>
>>
>> To me this triplet of sentences is tantamount to blowing your (sic)
>> proverbial foot off with a 155mm field gun even moreso than simply
>> selecting a 12 guage shotty for the job.
>>
>> But then I could be wrong!
>
> Yes, indeed.
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:06:31 GMT
Message-ID: <H5E3g.16140$vy1.3095_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Bob Badour wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For instance, the third principle would seem to argue strongly
>>>>> against null and n-vl.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But isn't that the very technique (combinatorial explosion) that
>>>> D+D propose with D?
>>>
>>>
>>> You have lost me here. How have they introduced a cominatorial
>>> explosion of special cases?
>>
>>
>> Nothing said about "special" cases - FWICT they were exploding
>> combinatorially for the general case.
>>
>> I was referring to the slides Darwen presented at Warwick Uni some
>> time ago - "Missing info without nulls" which I perhaps erroneously
>> associated with their TTM.
>>
>> I particularly like the foot note on page 9 ...
>> <quote>
>> Nothing wrong with the predicates now! And we have reduced the salary
>> part of the database to the simplest possible terms. Yes, some of the
>> complicated queries get more difficult now, because we might have to
>> combine these tables back together again, but the simple queries, such
>> as “How much salary does each person (who has a known salary) earn?” and
>> “Who earns no salary?” become trivial.
>> </quote>
>>
>> To me this triplet of sentences is tantamount to blowing your (sic)
>> proverbial foot off with a 155mm field gun even moreso than simply
>> selecting a 12 guage shotty for the job.
>>
>> But then I could be wrong!
>
> Yes, indeed.
Well it hasn't happened before so you could be the first :-) or as the bard prolly said "whats say thee now Falstaff?".
Cheers, Frank. Received on Wed Apr 26 2006 - 08:06:31 CEST