Re: Objects and Relations
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:18:04 GMT
Roy Hann wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>And that's it. That's how we work everyday. If we ever have to do deal >>>with items that are indistinguishable by anything but physical >>>location (or any characteristic we can't keep track of), we tag them >>>with a surrogate identifier to represent their unique nature. It's >>>just common sense really. >>> >>>As an addendum, once implemented a surrogate key becomes a natural >>>key. I find this fascinating - it seems somehow analagous to "Nature >>>abhoring a vacuum". >> >>I think it has more to do with the human drive to communicate.
> I struggle with that. If, for some reason, I choose to say (just) that, "I
> have a tin of cat food, and its name shall be 1345235", what have I
> communicated? No one in the real world could ever point it out and say,
> "Hey! There goes 1345235." And nor could I.
And I have yet to see anyone do that. Instead, they simply say they have 10 cans of cat food left which is plenty or only 2 cans of cat food left so they should buy more soon.
> I do see that I could do something like count all the times I've asserted
> something about a tin of cat food called 1345235 but it seems to me that
> I've gained that apparent ability without being able to validate the truth
> of my testimony about the real world. It seems to me that the ability to
> refer back to the real world, at least in principle, should be important.
That's what bin numbers do. Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 16:18:04 CET