Re: RM formalism supporting partial information
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:13:03 -0400
Message-ID: <473baad5$0$5299$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> 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.)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:13:03 -0400
Message-ID: <473baad5$0$5299$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
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 Thu Nov 15 2007 - 03:13:03 CET