Re: Proposal: 6NF
Date: 18 Oct 2006 02:26:21 -0700
Message-ID: <1161163581.406428.269440_at_e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > paul c wrote:
> >
> >> Tony D wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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 ;)
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> I take it you mean "rich type system" to mean "many types". I don't
> >> object to that. Perhaps my mention of "extended type support" wasn't
> >> typical usage. I had in mind the extending of one type or another as
> >> in the polymorphism that oop people talk about. That's what I've
> >> never seen a big need for.
> >
> > How do you intend to describe a monthly interval of third tuesdays if
> > you have no extensible type support?
> >
>
> I don't see any problem with a 'third tuesday' operator or 'third
> tuesday' result. Why would anybody? I hope this won't get people
> running to their dictionaries so as to quote definitions for extensible.
> >> > Yuck! Why would you want to express a concept physically instead of
> > [voltaire snipped]
> >
> >
> >> As for adding additional types to an existing dbms the other thing I'm
> >> not keen on is dbms language support to do that. My attitude is that
> >> a new type should be created in some language/environment that is more
> >> apropos to that task and then linked one way or another, with the
> >> dbms. By 'apropos' I mean two things: 1) something closer to a
> >> machine language for least execution cost (for example, I think the
> >> type support code or components ought to decide identity, not the dbms
> >> per se)
> >
> > conceptually or logically?
Tell the moron that Typing is a part of computing and certainly not a part of abstract reasonning. Computing is necessarily physical at some point. On a solely logical level, typing has no use as relations and domains are sufficient to explain all concepts related to RM.
> > and 2)
> >> an environment that allows the type or domain support to be
> >> created/tested/validated independently of the dbms.
> >
> > Yuck! Why do you want to do tests blindfolded with one arm tied behind
> > your back? Would you not want to leverage the power of predicate
> > calculus for your correctness proofs?
Because there is no logical rich typing with no physical layer to
suport it. Both are deeply bound. This idiot will never get it.
Received on Wed Oct 18 2006 - 11:26:21 CEST