Re: Domains, types, and application engineering ....

DBMS_Plumber wrote:
> Adding a note (and yes, I am still puzzling about the definition of
> Plus, so relax!) ...
>
> To drag this whole discussion out into the machine shop, pin it down
> with a set of vice clamps, and go at it hard with the drill press and
> arc-welding gear, the POINT of a relational DBMS is to accurately model
> some real world problem domain.
>
> So what "ought" the behavior of the domains in your relation schema be?

Do domains in predicate calculus have behavior? I believe asking questions and reasoning about properites of things and relationships predates behavior "in databases or DBMSs" by several centuries, no? You have a legitimate point, but as Turing pointed out, any reasoning or behavior that can be implemented in a logic-based machine is limited to that which we can write out as a process on a piece of paper, even through layers of abstractions and encodings. So maybe the question could be redirected as to what "ought" to be the behavior of domains mentioned on a piece of paper be? Should they dance? Back-flips? A tune would be nice.

• Dan