Re: RM's Canonical database

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 3 Jul 2006 12:36:39 -0700
Message-ID: <1151955399.248790.95460@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:

> The truth of the matter is we
> have several uniform and universal names for these 'rules' including the
> word 'rules' as well as the word 'constraints'.

I have never been very clear on a taxonomy of these things. What *exactly* "business rules" are I'm not certain.

If we are speaking of declarative integrity constraints written in FOL, it is clear what is being denoted.

If we are speaking of procedural app server code that executes updates, it is clear what is being denoted.

I don't have short, specific terms for either of these.

Also, what about building abstractions inside the dbms that execute updates, a la stored procedures. Is that ever done? Good idea, or what? Theoretical foundations?

I am somewhat frustrated that my professional experience has never included any of the features of SQL outside of queries and updates, and only the most minimal of integrity constraints: primary and foreign keys. My understanding outside of this area remains weak and/or theoretical only.

Marshall Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 14:36:39 CDT