Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:39:26 -0300
Message-ID: <47277a60$0$14845$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> 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!
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:39:26 -0300
Message-ID: <47277a60$0$14845$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
> 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!
If one lacks data, one hardly needs data management.
I would like to see more heavy thinkers thinking about 6NF. Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 19:39:26 CET