Re: Operationalize orthogonality
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:18:13 +0300
"Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> x wrote:
> > "Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:1149504303.205324.83320_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > x wrote:
> > >
> > > > How complicated! It would not be easyer to follow Mr. Codd advice ?
> > > > Domains, not types.
> > > And the difference between a domain and a type is what ? Precisely ?
> > The "standard" answer would be "educate yourself". :-)
I did. Have you noticed the "" and the :-) ?
> As precise as you need to be to point out what you believe the
> difference between a domain and a type is.
It was precise enough ? I wondered if you asked for mathematical symbols, that's all.
> > I would say that my current understanding of this (because I have not
> > read Codd's 1990 book - which I strongly recommend because I browsed it)
> > that domains do not include any kind of operator.
Anything you want. For example you can define relations on them. Of course I excluded from the exclusion equality, membership and enumeration or something like these.
> In this context, I equate the terms domain and type - as mentioned in
> the presentation pointed to elsewhere on this thread.
Sorry, I've forgoten about that. Good work. What I do not include in the domain (or type if you want to call it that way) are the operators like +, -, *,/, type conversions, etc. I think you first need a domain to be able to define a type - or viceversa :-)
> however, equate classes with domains or types - principally because
>(a) I'm not 100% clear on what a class is exactly,
I think you have been a member/participant of/in a class, so the percent is
greater than 0.
Can you give an approximation of the percent ? :-)
> (b) from what I do
> understand about classes & objects, there is a dynamic element to them
> that I wouldn't expect to find in a domain or type. I am open to
> persuasion on these points.)
How about object = set of relations + operators (or object = db) ?
Sorry about these ":-)" Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 14:18:13 CEST