Re: RM's Canonical database

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:04:22 GMT
Message-ID: <GOypg.4687$pu3.108260@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Ron Jeffries wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 11:27:17 +0200, mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
>

>>Robert Martin wrote:
>>
>>>... business rules don't belong in the database.  
>>
>>What, in your opinion, does belong in the database?

>
> Uh ... data?

'Data' is information represented suitably for machine processing. In what way are business rules not information or not represented suitably for machine processing? Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 13:04:22 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Bob Badour: "Re: RM's Canonical database"
Previous message: Bob Badour: "Re: QRe: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me"
In reply to: Ron Jeffries: "Re: RM's Canonical database (was: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count)"
Next in thread: Frans Bouma: "Re: RM's Canonical database"
Reply: Frans Bouma: "Re: RM's Canonical database"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

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