paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
> ...
>
>> He also said an attribute is a set of values.
>
> Not saying I'll ever get past the first page but I feel fairly
> comfortable with the first couple of "paragraphs", even if an ellipsis
> might be missing and even though I would have rather seen attribute
> described as a pair the way D&D do - my reason for this is that it might
> be easier to compare with whatever the later pages say, eg., avoiding
> words like "consists". (Maybe this is only because my pet peeve in RM
> talk and IT in general is that the common vocabulary is way too large; a
> lesser peeve is that some words are way over-used but I think my lesser
> peeve is the pet peeve of many other people, "object" is an example -
> I'd say it's what Edward de Bono called a porridge word.)
>
> Do the first few paragraphs really say an attribute is a set of values?
> (I saw the bit about a domain being a set of values which doesn't seem
> untoward to me.)
Did you catch the part where it said an attribute is a domain? And then
it went on to say a domain is a set of values.
Received on Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:13:03 CST
