Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 13 Feb 2007 21:42:16 -0800
David BL wrote:
> I've been thinking about the following example: There is a
> collection of Lego pieces and we want to store information
> about how they have been connected in various configurations.
You are begging the question since "Lego pieces" assumes entities. That is, I'm certain in your mind piece = entity.
> An interesting question is whether we try to distinguish
> pieces that for all intensive purposes look the same.
> It would appear not, otherwise we will be forced to get
> out a felt tip pen and give them unique identifiers, and
> we don't want to do that. Therefore a particular piece is
> only described (but not uniquely identified) by its
> attributes (eg its colour and dimensions).
You seem to have completely forgotten about /location/ in space even though you started by mentioning "configurations" which has everything to do with location. And again, plenty of begging the question there with "piece", "them", "its", "identifiers". Do you see how your language and frame of mind is steeped in "entity" brew?
> This all sounds well and good. Unfortunately I don't see
> how we are going to store the information about what is
> connected to what unless we identify the pieces themselves.
Because you forgot about spatial location.
It's been said that just about anything is a paradox to someone out there.
> On the one hand we need to uniquely identify the pieces in
> order to represent the structure
No we don't. "pieces" and especially piece "identity" are unnecessary.
> and on the other hand, at some higher level we aren't at
> all interested in the identity of the pieces.
Well, we agree on that. At the moment though, you are still peering up to that higher ground from the entity quagmire.
Keith - Fraud 6 Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 06:42:16 CET