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: Chris Smith <cdsmith_at_twu.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:41:25 -0600
Message-ID: <MPG.1f106fc5bd8aa13d98972f@news.altopia.net>


Michael Gaab <mike-g_at_montana.com> wrote:
> 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*.

This would be worth saying if we had a suitable definition of "business rule". I haven't seen one, though. Clearly, application-specific stuff should be in some application--specific location, and business-wide data integrity constraints should be in some industry-wide location to prevent duplication and potential inconsistency. The question of which one is called "business rules" is rather null in meaning. I couldn't even tell which of the above you are talking about until you implied it in the above statement.

-- 
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 13:41:25 CDT

Original text of this message

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