Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:20:33 GMT
Bob Badour wrote:
> It seems he considered them unecessary in the sense one can always
> normalize the data to obviate the need for them.
It seems that way to me too but I'd add that I think he presumed that one has applicable "data" in the first place, ie., one has in mind enough attributes that have values so as to allow tuples to stand for what what has in mind to express, eg., one must be able to distinguish different facts by tuple values, otherwise one hasn't determined the system's requirements in the first place and we could never agree on what the system is supposed to be talking about! Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 19:20:33 CET