Re: RM's Canonical database
Date: 1 Jul 2006 11:43:20 -0700
Bob Badour wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Michael Gaab wrote:
> > [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.
I want to make sure I understand: you're saying you can add constraints to a view that are not derived from the base tables?
Marshall Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 20:43:20 CEST