Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?
From: Jon Heggland <jon.heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:01:17 +0200
Message-ID: <e3d1fd$3bt$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no>
>
> 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.
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:01:17 +0200
Message-ID: <e3d1fd$3bt$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no>
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.
-- JonReceived on Thu May 04 2006 - 16:01:17 CEST