Re: Proposal: 6NF

"Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:1161090234.533844.46810_at_k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> paul c wrote:
>
> > Still, the bulk of the apps I've seen
> > don't need that extended type support ...
>
> I couldn't disagree with this observation more strongly. Without a rich
> type system, we can't talk about the right things (attributes). If we
> can't talk about the right things, we can't reasonably expect to
> construct proper statements (relations). As well to make assertions
> about horse racing by discussing camels :) And to have a rich type
> system, we'd better make sure the underpinnings are at least consistent
> and preferably correct ;)

It seems to me that it's possible to talk about the right things with a rich domain system,
even if lacking a rich type system. It also seems to me that user defined domains are not the same thing as additional types. Received on Wed Oct 18 2006 - 06:06:19 CEST