Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

Neo wrote:

[and did some heavy-handed snipping...]

>>Why were there no (new 'sage 'adj) and (new 'jerk 'adj) ...

>> ... and (new 'state 'noun) above?

>>Do [you?] expect me to code:
>>var opposite real relation {this char, that char} key {this, that} ;
>>opposite += relation {
>>	tuple {this 'sage', that 'jerk},
>>	tuple {this 'jerk', that 'sage'} } ;
>>
>>Well, I won't.  The values in such a relation correspond to the names of relation variables.

> Ok, but I would still like to see Tutorial D's script to match dbd's
> extension of original example.

>>[When does a design become self-aware? What critical threshold must be surpassed? Yes, you in the back; Seamode, is it?]

> Hofstadter ponders the same point in his book "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an
> Eternal Golden Braid".

>>... But whether [sage and jerk are] antonyms ... doesn't have anything to do with what the database can deduce.

> Ok, but I would still like to see Tutorial D's script to match dbd's
> extension of original example.

And we've arrived at an impasse: you're interpreted a design, decided that some attributes are "classifications" rather than "adjectives" and that others are not "nouns" and cobbled together a dbd design that represents your reinterpretation of whatever it was being represented.

In fact, you're seem to have created an admixture of attributes and values that I can't follow.

Consequently, there's no way that (i) you can call the dbd design an extension of the Tut D design or (ii) I can present a Tut D equivalent for what you've put together, irregardless of the fact that I can't seem to understand your explanations of what it is you've created. It all seems to be horribly confused and lacking coherence.

Sorry; I don't think I can help you.

[snip] Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 01:46:03 CEST