Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

Jon Heggland wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > Jon Heggland wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Actually, as far as I can tell it was you that introduced the term "weak
> entity" in this context, and it is incorrect. Neither colour nor shoe
> size is a weak entity, unless my shoe size (44) is something different
> from my brother's shoe size (also 44); ditto for colours. Likewise, the
> shoe size 44 does not cease to exist just because the tuple describing
> its relationship to me is deleted. That discussion shows signs of less
> than clear thinking on more than one part.
> --
> Jon

You are right of course.

However Dawn originally stated that a Character was a "strong entity" while a Colour was not. While I did not agree, this was broadly irrelevant to the point I was making and I did not want to get stuck on the digression. As such I changed my example to reflect this in an attempt to get back on track, so I can only hope this tangential line ends swiftly.

I should have used symbols in my example, that had no semantic loading. You live and learn. Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 10:00:06 CDT