Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 12, 10:36 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 6:51 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>[snip]
> >>It seems entirely immoral to see a set of relations that taken
> >>together state facts about both internal and external entities. It
> >>seems quite wrong to mix these levels of abstraction.
>
> This shit is nonsense. Internal and external have very clear and
> well-defined meanings within our field, and his use of these words has
> nothing to do with those meanings. David is a self-aggrandizing ignorant
> making shit up as he goes along.

It seems I must think of some different terminology.

I thought Bob was happy to overload meanings of words - apparently in the name of brevity.

> For example,
>
> >>what is a problem domain expert going to think of a query result
> >>containing "labels" of parts of the abstract machine (eg StringIds)
> >>that they don't know about and don't care about?
>
> Where the fuck did StringIds come from? Why the fuck would anyone need
> an id for a string in the first place? Strings are simply values; they
> self-identify.

That was my point. Bob doesn't understand my post. If relations state facts about entities that are both inside and outside the abstract machine then you'll see id's of things like strings that should really be value types in the schema.

[snip] Received on Mon Feb 12 2007 - 15:08:32 CET