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

From: Chris Smith <>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:41:25 -0600
Message-ID: <>

Michael Gaab <> 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 - 20:41:25 CEST

Original text of this message