Re: RM's Canonical database

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:33:58 GMT
Message-ID: <qezpg.4696$>

Marshall wrote:
> Michael Gaab wrote:

>>"mAsterdam" <> wrote in message news:44a63f88$0$31653$
>>>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.

Even in that case, the most effective way to enforce R or to deliver R is through the application view provided by M for A. Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 20:33:58 CEST

Original text of this message