Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:35:49 GMT
Message-ID: <9uIKh.327$742.146_at_trndny07>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:Y_EKh.25444$zU1.18890_at_pd7urf1no...
> Walt wrote:
> > "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> > news:4LlKh.23958$zU1.8560_at_pd7urf1no...
> >
> >>Bernard Peek wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2007-03-15, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Bernard Peek wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The word "object" is essentially meaningless. It has no clear
> >
> > definition
> >
> >>>>>>and gets used to mean a variety of things. Those who use it
frequently
> >>>>>>do so to impede communication.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The word, in the context of object-oriented languages and databases,
> >
> > seems
> >
> >>>>>to me to have precisely two meanings. One is the set of identifiable
> >
> > things
> >
> >>>>>and the other is the set of computer-based models of identifiable
> >
> > things.
> >
> >>>>Huh?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What part of that are you having a problem with?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>It does impede communication, but it's not for want of trying. I
think
> >
> > it's the
> >
> >>>>>universality of the concept that may be at the heart of the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>Um, are you saying that if it means everything and anything then it
> >>>>means nothing?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nope. But I've seen some smart people new to UNIX who can't seem to get
> >
> > their
> >
> >>>head around the idea the everything is a file.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think that if they were actually smart, they must have been having an
> >>off-day. For smart, check the previous two posts on this group, from
> >>JOG and Walt. Very smart, even though they are unavoidably detained by
> >>the modern penchant for wondering if old definitions of words such as
> >>"surrogate" are somehow extinct.
> >>
> >
> > You lost me here.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Oh, it's just that I've heard many people, some I think are smart,
> natter on for years about so-called surrogates and can't see that the
> talk has turned up any db theory of use. Why do people infer there is
> some fertile ground here? Topic seems too metaphysical to my taste,
> very little to do with any applied theory. Reminds me how an expert
> auto mechanic can diagnose all kinds of electrical problems without
> understanding what an electron is, actually similar goes for electrical
> engineers!
>
Recently, I started nattering about "surrogate identifiers". That was merely an attempt to discover if a disconnect between the OP in the latest OO topic and most of us was a matter of terminology or not. I plead not guilty to metaphysics on that one.
Most of the time, when the subject of surrogate keys has come up in the past, I've been one of the people who say that a surrogate key is no more, and no less artificial than an arbitrary key assigned to an entity by a human. I don't think that's all that metaphysical either.
You are right that the talk of surrogate keys has yielded little, if anything, of theoretical value. My comments have been directed, hopefully, at redirecting the discussion back to something that matters. Received on Sat Mar 17 2007 - 03:35:49 CET