Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

On Nov 15, 11:13 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 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.

I said an attribute consists of a name and a domain.

Would Bob say the following is true?

    car consists of engine, steering wheel, ...     =>
    car is a engine Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 06:25:06 CET