Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

JOG wrote:
> Jon Heggland wrote:

>> 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.

Yes, but the distinction is rather between a (strong) entity and a "mere" attribute/property. Which I still consider flawed thinking, by the way: An entity can be a property of another entity (depending on how you define "property", of course; alternatively, there is little or no logical difference between a property and a relationship).

> 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 understand. In my mind, the "flaw" in your example was that in the case of colours, the application bias introduced by using LVAs for colours is intuitively acceptable (at least if you don't think too hard about it), but in the case of people and papers, it is definitely not.

> I should have used symbols in my example, that had no semantic loading.

Maybe, but then someone might have argued that you cannot decide between different designs unless you are aware of the real-life semantics and requirements. :)

-- 
Jon