| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements
> And we've arrived at an impasse: you're interpreted a design, decided that some attributes are "classifications" rather than "adjectives" ...
Ok, so you are saying that I mis-interpretted sage and jerk in the Tutorial D script (shown below) as being classifications and that they are in fact adjectives of Bob/JayDee and Neo, respectively.
var sage real relation { name char } key { name } ; sage += relation {tuple { name 'Bob' },
tuple { name 'JayDee' } };
var jerk real relation { name char } key { name } ; jerk += relation {tuple { name 'Neo' } } ;
> ... and that others are not "nouns" ...
Dbd's implemention didn't represent state as being or not being nouns as neither was explicit in the Tutorial D script shown below:
var state real relation { name char, state char } key { name } ; state += relation {tuple { name 'Bob', state 'on' },
tuple { name 'Neo', state 'off' } } ;
> ... and cobbled together a dbd design that represents your reinterpretation of whatever it was being represented.
If you would like, I can redo the dbd's implementation with the correct interpretation although I am still unclear if you wanted state to be classified as a noun or not as a noun or neither. Received on Sun Aug 06 2006 - 19:42:37 CDT
![]() |
![]() |