Re: RM's Canonical database

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:12:24 GMT
Message-ID: <sOzpg.4706$>

Marshall wrote:

> 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.
>>>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?

No. The predicate of the view constrains what the application interacts with. Thus the application only interacts with the subset of the data that complies with its rules. Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 21:12:24 CEST

Original text of this message