Re: RM's Canonical database
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:09:05 GMT
Message-ID: <R_xpg.7876$Eh1.4571_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
paul c wrote:
> Michael Gaab wrote:
>
>> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message >> news:44a63f88$0$31653$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl... >> >>> Robert Martin wrote: >>> >>>> ... business rules don't belong in the database. >>> >>> What, in your opinion, does belong in the database? >>> >> >> Imagine that your database is used by multiple applications where >> each application has different business rules. IMO, this is one reason >> why one should not include business rules in a db. So the answer to >> your question is *data*.
>
>
> I'm trying to imagine two apps that use the same data with different
> business rules. Wouldn't they screw each other? eg., one could leave
> the db in a state that didn't obey the other's rules?
>
> p
It was, I believe, David McGovern who said, "Databases don't
store data, they store facts!" To be precise, I suppose he
should have said "representations of facts."
The point is that every tuple in every relation represents