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$vy1.3213_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>> Nothing said about "special" cases - FWICT they were exploding
>>>> combinatorially for the general case.
>>>> I was referring to the slides Darwen presented at Warwick Uni some
>>>> time ago - "Missing info without nulls" which I perhaps erroneously
>>>> associated with their TTM.
>>>> I particularly like the foot note on page 9 ...
>>>> <quote>
>>>> Nothing wrong with the predicates now! And we have reduced the salary
>>>> part of the database to the simplest possible terms. Yes, some of the
>>>> complicated queries get more difficult now, because we might have to
>>>> combine these tables back together again, but the simple queries, such
>>>> as “How much salary does each person (who has a known salary) earn?”
>>>> and
>>>> “Who earns no salary?” become trivial.
>>>> </quote>
>>>> To me this triplet of sentences is tantamount to blowing your (sic)
>>>> proverbial foot off with a 155mm field gun even moreso than simply
>>>> selecting a 12 guage shotty for the job.
>>>> But then I could be wrong!
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:38:23 GMT
Message-ID: <P0X3g.17128$vy1.3213_at_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 Thu Apr 27 2006 - 05:38:23 CEST