Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Reflections of a beautiful mind... Fundamental principle: Separation of Concerns

Re: Reflections of a beautiful mind... Fundamental principle: Separation of Concerns

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:38:23 GMT
Message-ID: <P0X3g.17128$vy1.3213@news-server.bigpond.net.au>


Bob Badour wrote:

> 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.

Enough of this wanton OT merriment - it is already decided I am an elixir consumer!

I am interested without regard for the wider question we are banging on about within other threads solely what your take is on that footnote?

IMO the answer does not/can not weaken your thesis on null at all so please be assured I am not a false dawn trying to craft a chink and I therefore encourage you to be frank and to the point.

Cheers, Frank. Received on Wed Apr 26 2006 - 22:38:23 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US