Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 24 Feb 2007 04:02:02 -0800
On 24 fév, 00:41, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:02 am, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 3:55 pm, "Alfredo Novoa" <alfred..._at_gmail.com> wrote:>
> > > > But, how exactly do you formalize common sense?
> > > Using a formal language to describe the term.
> > What is a *formal language* to you?
> Here's a good starting point to learn about formal languages:
> > Which one are you refering to ?
> Since he said "_a_ formal language" it is clear he didn't mean
> a specific one.
I know exactly that. But discussing database theory *is* about being specific (remember Codd's commitment to terminology). In case of RM, *formal language* is a vague term for *mathematical set theory symbology*. The point was to draw attention on the fact that while a strong critics of sloppyness, which may seem precise to him may be *vague* and unspecific to others. Exchanging terminology issues online is difficult that's why overconfidence in one's own clarity of thought (be it justified or not) is a dangerous path to follow.
Last attempt of explanation.
Received on Sat Feb 24 2007 - 13:02:02 CET