Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: RM's Canonical database (was: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count)

Re: RM's Canonical database (was: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count)

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 1 Jul 2006 11:02:07 -0700
Message-ID: <1151776927.539433.120340@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>


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*.

[speaking in terms of the enterprise dbms]

I reject your argument on simple definitional grounds.

Given a business with a set of applications A and a database D managed by a dbms M.

Consider a given rule R.

If for all a in A R holds, then R is a business rule, and should be managed by M.

--otherwise--

If there exists a in A where R holds, then R is an application rule and should be managed by a.

I am completely unwilling to consider something a "business rule" if it isn't true for the business. Something that's required for application a
but does not hold for application b is a rule of application a, and decidedly *not* a business rule.

Marshall Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 13:02:07 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US