Re: RM's Canonical database

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:18:00 GMT
Message-ID: <ITzpg.114138$IK3.35214@pd7tw1no>

Marshall wrote:
> Michael Gaab wrote:

>> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:44a63f88$0$31653$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
>>> 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.
> ...

Now along comes app A2 where R also holds. Can A and A2 somehow share R?

I wonder if this definition is incomplete in that it doesn't say what happens with D.

p Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 14:18:00 CDT