Re: Stupid Database Tricks

On 15 jun, 21:42, vldm10 <vld..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:23 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 14 jun, 12:55, vldm10 <vld..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here I believe that you misunderstand what is key. I have
> > > 1. the identifier of the state of an entity or relationship
> > > 2. the identifier of the entity or relationship.
> > > [...big snip...]
>
> > [....] So how about
> > you giving some proper definition and/or explanation of what they
> > mean?
>
> The names of these identifiers are with exact meaning. This is reason
> why the names are so long.
> You can find it on my website, where I presented this model. So
> theoretical background you can find there (No needs to write it
> twice). All terms are very precisely defined or I gave their
> construction.

Well, what you give is a description of how they behave, but you do not really define them in terms of the universe of discourse. This is important if you want to claim that you are presenting a conceptual model because that should satisfy the so-called Conceptualization Principle which states that conceptual model deals only and exclusively with aspects of the Universe of Discourse. This excludes for example implementation concepts. In other words, you should not introduced artificial identifiers that do not have some kind of welldefined  meaning in the Universe of Discourse. So it is this definition that I was asking you about.

Of course, perhaps I misunderstand and you are not trying to present a conceptual model. But even then adding such artificial implementation concepts is usually a bad idea unless they cannot be avoided or there are direct and clear benifits. So I first want to establish whether your concepts are outside the Universe of Discourse or not. So, are they?

• Jan Hidders