Re: RM formalism supporting partial information
From: Brian Selzer <brian_at_selzer-software.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:48:44 GMT
Message-ID: <wmW_i.10139$yV6.1514_at_newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
>> paul c wrote:
>> > Bob Badour wrote:
>> > ...
>>
>> >> He also said an attribute is a set of values.
>>
>> > Not saying I'll ever get past the first page but I feel fairly
>> > comfortable with the first couple of "paragraphs", even if an ellipsis
>> > might be missing and even though I would have rather seen attribute
>> > described as a pair the way D&D do - my reason for this is that it
>> > might
>> > be easier to compare with whatever the later pages say, eg., avoiding
>> > words like "consists". (Maybe this is only because my pet peeve in RM
>> > talk and IT in general is that the common vocabulary is way too large;
>> > a
>> > lesser peeve is that some words are way over-used but I think my lesser
>> > peeve is the pet peeve of many other people, "object" is an example -
>> > I'd say it's what Edward de Bono called a porridge word.)
>>
>> > Do the first few paragraphs really say an attribute is a set of values?
>> > (I saw the bit about a domain being a set of values which doesn't seem
>> > untoward to me.)
>>
>> Did you catch the part where it said an attribute is a domain? And then
>> it went on to say a domain is a set of values.
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:48:44 GMT
Message-ID: <wmW_i.10139$yV6.1514_at_newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
"David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:42fd6199-810c-45cf-81ed-b88361ad2574_at_i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> 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 >
"What the Klingon said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 12:48:44 CET