Re: Why bother with Logical data model?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:01:36 GMT
Message-ID: <4wKCg.38857$pu3.506126@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:22:20 GMT, Bob Badour
> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>>I have just invented a new layer called the 'conceptalogical layer'.
>>>It's meaningless obviously but sounds like just the sort of thing I
>>>could build a software business on. It's  a winner I tell you
>>></cynicism>
>>
>>It's going to have a tough time competing against my new logceptysical 
>>model. Let's see who gets the book deal first! ;)


> 

>      My money is on JOG.  His term is easy to say.  Yours is awkward.


Darn! You are so right!




>      I take that back.  *MY* model is better.  I call it

> "Conilogisal". In accordance with the first syllable, I am prepared
> to accept bribes in order to leave the market to the two of you.
> Please be generous.

Okay, nix the conceptysical. How about a 'New Age' database theory book? Three levels of discourse: the inconceivable, the illogical and the imaginary?

Instead of analysis and design, we could have truth stretching to achieve the inconceivable and transcendental meditation to find the third i.

But would it sell outside of Washington, Oregon and California? Then again, does the database field even matter outside of those three states? Received on Thu Aug 10 2006 - 13:01:36 CDT