Re: Objects and Relations
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:11:58 GMT
Message-ID: <OmKCh.8876$R71.135889_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>On Feb 16, 9:32 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 16, 4:37 pm, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>I would like to claim that this very discussion reveals one
>>>>of the advantages of trying to think without entities. It
>>>>encourages us to think about the /problem/ instead. That is
>>>>to think about our goals, our requirements, our knowledge,
>>>>etc. It forces us to consider the facts at hand and those
>>>>that may arise and design solutions for handling them.
>>
>>>Yeah.
>>
>>>I used to have to deal with this vaguely uneasy
>>>feeling that terminology was an indicator of some
>>>piece of wisdom that I didn't have access to.
>>>So I'd hear talk of, say, UML or OOAD or whatever
>>>and think, oh, heck, I better learn what that is.
>>>So I'd buy a book and it'd be really hard to understand.
>>>I'd push and push, and eventually I'd figure out
>>>that they were just doing something straightforward,
>>>like "programming" or "data modelling" or something,
>>>but they had dressed it up in some fancy clothes,
>>>added some extraneous concepts, applied some
>>>arbitrary rules, etc. The intent was to obscure
>>>rather than to reveal. Make it look like more than
>>>it was. Really annoying.
>>
>>>I remember reading a guy on comp.lang.functional
>>>describing going through the same process, but
>>>over the phrase "dependency injection." After a
>>>week of reading he figured out it meant "abstraction"
>>>(as in "lambda abstraction.") In other words it was
>>>just the process of parameterizing code.
>>
>>>The thing about entities is, what does it buy me?
>>>I've got relations; I know how they work. Now I'm
>>>supposed to layer this "entities" concept over the
>>>top of that. What do I have now that I didn't before?
>>
>>>Seriously, what?
>>
>>>Marshall
>>
>>I use entities in conceptual modeling. I do not see a need for it in
>>logical modeling, although it is just a level of abstraction away and
>>some products (or standards such as XML) use the term in the logical
>>layer as well. Relations do not fall from the sky, so how did you
>>know what relations to design?
>
> Ah yes, but propositions do fall from the sky.
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:11:58 GMT
Message-ID: <OmKCh.8876$R71.135889_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:05 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >
>>On Feb 16, 9:32 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 16, 4:37 pm, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>I would like to claim that this very discussion reveals one
>>>>of the advantages of trying to think without entities. It
>>>>encourages us to think about the /problem/ instead. That is
>>>>to think about our goals, our requirements, our knowledge,
>>>>etc. It forces us to consider the facts at hand and those
>>>>that may arise and design solutions for handling them.
>>
>>>Yeah.
>>
>>>I used to have to deal with this vaguely uneasy
>>>feeling that terminology was an indicator of some
>>>piece of wisdom that I didn't have access to.
>>>So I'd hear talk of, say, UML or OOAD or whatever
>>>and think, oh, heck, I better learn what that is.
>>>So I'd buy a book and it'd be really hard to understand.
>>>I'd push and push, and eventually I'd figure out
>>>that they were just doing something straightforward,
>>>like "programming" or "data modelling" or something,
>>>but they had dressed it up in some fancy clothes,
>>>added some extraneous concepts, applied some
>>>arbitrary rules, etc. The intent was to obscure
>>>rather than to reveal. Make it look like more than
>>>it was. Really annoying.
>>
>>>I remember reading a guy on comp.lang.functional
>>>describing going through the same process, but
>>>over the phrase "dependency injection." After a
>>>week of reading he figured out it meant "abstraction"
>>>(as in "lambda abstraction.") In other words it was
>>>just the process of parameterizing code.
>>
>>>The thing about entities is, what does it buy me?
>>>I've got relations; I know how they work. Now I'm
>>>supposed to layer this "entities" concept over the
>>>top of that. What do I have now that I didn't before?
>>
>>>Seriously, what?
>>
>>>Marshall
>>
>>I use entities in conceptual modeling. I do not see a need for it in
>>logical modeling, although it is just a level of abstraction away and
>>some products (or standards such as XML) use the term in the logical
>>layer as well. Relations do not fall from the sky, so how did you
>>know what relations to design?
>
> Ah yes, but propositions do fall from the sky.
And if one really, really has to feed the troll, one could always resort to Jack Webb: "Just the facts, Ma'am" Received on Tue Feb 20 2007 - 23:11:58 CET