Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: dawn <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com>
Date: 4 May 2006 06:18:49 -0700
Message-ID: <1146748729.194676.189000_at_g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>


JOG wrote:
> Jon Heggland wrote:
> > dawn wrote:
> [snip]
> > > In order to model as much meaning as feasible, I want my data modeled
> > > in a biased way (a way biased toward meaning where color and paper are
> > > different, see chat with JOG on this topic),
> >
> > "Biased towards meaning"---as opposed to what? Meaninglessness? I'm
> > talking about biased towards query as opposed to update, or towards
> > certain queries at the expense of others. Twisting reasonably accepted
> > terms like that does not help your argument.
>
> Agree. I like the "biased towards certain queries at the expense of
> others" - it's a nice way of putting it.
>
> >
> > FWIW, I don't endorse the entity-attribute thinking you (and JOG)
> > indulge in. It confuses the issue, and does not contribute anything. For
> > example, I consider treating colour and paper differently a flaw, not an
> > advantage.
>
> Exactly Jon - there is no difference between them and treating them so
> is flawed . Dawn has assumed a colour is a 'weak entity', but there is
> no justification for this assumption from the propositions that were
> inititally supplied.

Clearly you need to know the requirements. However, there must have been enough justification for you to change your example, suggesting your first one was not a good one. Dang, I was feeling you coming my direction, if only a little.

> Workload means i can't currently reply in full to dawn - but trying to
> clarify why E-A thinking can be misleading in terms of the logical
> model is a worthwhile (if not easy) exercise imo.

I definitely know what it can be misleading. That is why there is a need to understand the business situation. Then you can start to see what even the ORM acknowledges when it comes to identity attributes -- some things are best modeled as properties.

Workload issues on this end too, so keeping it brief. Take care. --dawn Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 15:18:49 CEST

Original text of this message