Re: RM and abstract syntax trees

From: paul c <>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:02:27 GMT
Message-ID: <7dLVi.161545$th2.24086_at_pd7urf3no>

Bob Badour wrote:

> paul c wrote:

>> 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.

My knee-jerk reaction is similar to what I think about procedural languages and conventional concurrency theory - as soon as you acknowledge time (by pretending to be able to be aware of it in a system), things get really complicated. But of course I'm not a heavy thinker! Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 20:02:27 CET

Original text of this message