Re: Relation or attribute and why

David Cressey wrote:

> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148432908.908347.174660_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 

David,

If you are going to interract with the self-aggrandizing ignorants, please, take the time to point out the most fundamental and profound points of their ignorance. Failing to do so only serves to reinforce and to spread the widespread ignorance and misconception in our industry.

A conceptual model deals with information and not solely data per se. As such, the term conceptual data model is ignorant nonsense.

The self-aggrandizing ignorant further confuses pretty pictures with what they represent. ORM and ERM are diagraming tools one uses to draw pretty pictures of conceptual models. (ERD is a diagramming tool to draw pretty pictures of logical designs.) The diagrams are not the models any more than a tabular picture of a relation alters its degree.

>>> Logical gets into the details, but not the implementation.
>>
>>A typical use of the term would allow for a conceptual data model to go
>>from high level to detailed (in the end). [Although if a decision is
>>made earlier that the requirements have been captured sufficiently to
>>do flesh it out using common sense in a transition to an LDM, I can
>>live with some agility.]

See what I mean? Here the self-aggrandizing ignorant once again pretends that ignorant nonsense like 'conceptual data model' has meaning. Then she demonstrates profound ignorance and confusion between a logical design and a logical data model, among which one finds the relational data model, the network data model and the hierarchic data model, themselves.

The surest sign that Dawn is a crank is her ignorant parroting of fashion statements like 'agility'.

You do no service by repeating such ignorant nonsense without challenge on the most fundamental level.

>>I once considered the LDM to be implementation-independent, but after
>>reading other definitions the logical data model appears to be data
>>model dependent to most who use the term. In that case, you would not
>>have the same logical data model for an RM implementation as an MV
>>implementation, for example.

Here, again, the self-aggrandizing ignorant shows her profound ignorance regarding logical data models. The relational data model is, itself, a logical data model. A logical data model is a formalism for the symbolic manipulation of data. A specific set of base relations and views is not a logical data model nor is a specific set of records and pointers.

Of course! A logical design depends on the logical data model one targets! How could it not? The whole point of a logical design is to describe the represention of some subset of the information in a form suitable for symbolic manipulation, which necessitates one represent the data according to the structures and operations of the formal system. Duh!

> Agreed.
> 
> The LDM is data model dependent.

See the trap? By failing to recognize that Dawn is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorant spouting volumes of ignorant nonsense, you fall into the trap of repeating the ignorant nonsense yourself.

What point were you really trying to communicate when you wrote the tautology above? The relational model depends on the relational model? The network model depends on the network model? I think such simple tautoloties go without saying because saying them conveys no information whatsoever.

Presumably, you meant to say something different.

   It's also a design model, not an analysis > model. Elements of the LDM pertain to the solution domain, not the problem > domain.

Once again, you repeat her ignorant nonsense. A logical data model is a formalism for symbolic manipulation, and formalisms are domain independent.

   People who insist that there is only one viable data model tend to

> nerge the LDM with either the PDM or the CDM.  Most of the RM "catholics" in
> c.d.t.  merge the LDM with the CDM, because they think that selecting a data
> model is a choice with only one answer.

I find the statement both backhanded and ignorant. It insults all of the legitimate contributors here. Shame on you! Received on Wed May 24 2006 - 20:24:22 CEST