Re: RM's Canonical database

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 3 Jul 2006 05:10:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1151928623.452925.48180_at_b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Bob Badour wrote:
> Michael Gaab wrote:
>
> > "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:44a63f88$0$31653$e4fe514c@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.
>
> The name 'business rules' suggest to me the rules apply to the entire
> business including all applications the business might want. Otherwise,
> wouldn't they be called 'application rules' ?
Careful with *business rules* terminology, *enterprise specific* rules is a more cautious choice.

> IMO, this is one reason
> > why one should not include business rules in a db. So the answer to
> > your question is *data*.
>
> 'Data' is defined as information represented suitably for machine
> processing. In what way are business rules not information or not
> suitably represented for machine processing?
First question implies misunderstanding of RM design. Second question points out to a common confusion concerning difference between information and data.

business rules are *not* information in RM design perspective. Creation of information (as opposed to data) necessarily involves human interpretation over structured data. Assertion of business rules is a part of formalization and structure process to build mechanization from an informal unstrutured fact about business. They are indeed mechanizable. Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 14:10:23 CEST

Original text of this message