Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:48:44 GMT
Message-ID: <wmW_i.10139$>

"David BL" <> wrote in message

> On Nov 15, 11:13 am, Bob Badour <> 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

"What the Klingon said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 12:48:44 CET

Original text of this message