Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:11:48 -0800
On Feb 14, 11:07 am, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> An example of BB's incoherence...
> JOG states:
> << 1) Lego blocks are /not/ the same. They always have a different
> location attribute.
> 2) Hence their x,y,z position attribute always identifies them.
> 3) However this identifer is very hard to record and keep track of,
> even though it exists. >>.
> Bob Badour responds:
> <<To amplify, the location might be familiar and perhaps even unique,
> it is neither simple nor stable. >>
> In other words, it can not be a primary key. This is totally
> incoherent. BB *amplifies* a theory by stating its exact opposite.
> Location is not a key for LegoBlock. Period.
Location can be a key -- it has uniqueness which is the only hard requirement. However, if one chooses it as a key, one chooses all of the problems inherent to unstable, compound keys. The question becomes: Do the benefits of familiarity outweigh the costs of those problems? Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 17:11:48 CET