Re: more closed-world chatter

Cimode wrote:
> ...
> It seems to me that the spirit of your question leads to the computing
> model that actually allows the representation of sets. What I mean is
> that the arbitration of whether exceptions should or shoud not occur
> is tightly bound to the chronological availability of the information
> to the db engine of set disjointness/non disjointness. As a
> consequence, I believe the arbitration is more related to the
> computing model that would allow the implementation of a TRDBMS,
> rather than the abstract aspect of RM.
> ...

Philosophically, I think I buy that. I don't know how useful it is but I like such extreme questions if only because they help me find a useful logical "centre".

I like D&D's (or maybe it should "D|D's") premise that goes something like "domains/types are the things we talk about and relations are the things we say about the things we are talking about" even though some US president said it first ("let me say this about that"). With finite machines, this may seem like wild and woolly sci-fi, but what if fixed domains aren't the starting point?

p Received on Sat May 05 2007 - 17:28:06 CEST