Re: RM's Canonical database

From: Dan <guntermann_at_verizon.net>
Date: 3 Jul 2006 11:44:32 -0700
Message-ID: <1151952272.739063.219830_at_h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Marshall wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> >
> > Sure. I will accept that. I recognize it as a valid definition, but
> > not as the only definition.
>
> Definitions are funny things; anyone can make one. For example,
> within the context of this post only, I will use the following
> definitions:
>
> data: a starbuck's coffee
> information: small tasks done throughout the day; errands
>
> We can see from this that definitions are much like name binding
> in programming languages. They have a scope and a lifetime,
> can easily be created by anyone anywhere, and refer to
> whatever the author wants them to refer to. For them to be
> useful, it is only necessary to get two modules or two people
> to agree on them. Furthermore, it is possible to have an
> authoritative name or definition when one registers with
> an authorizing body, such as when one creates the Customers
> table in a dbms or has a standard definition endorsed by
> a standards body.
>
> Anyway, I've finished my morning's data, and now I've got
> to go run some information.
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. I still think the ISO definitions are the best ones.

Point(s) taken. Didn't ISO promulgate SQL standards? :-)

  • Dan
Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 20:44:32 CEST

Original text of this message