Frank Hamersley wrote:
> 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?".
Knowing Falstaff, he would grab a bottle of plonk and boisterously amuse
himself with the double-entendre.
Received on Wed Apr 26 2006 - 09:56:58 CDT
