Re: One-To-One Relationships

From: JOG <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Nov 30, 3:33 am, paul c <> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> ...
> > Yup.
> Okay, I think that makes you a natural-born implementor even though I
> have no idea what you spend your other time at (besides enjoying
> somebody else's company of course). I don't mean "implementor" as in
> "don't tell me the problem as that will only slow me down solving it".
> Just what is it that qualifies them to be entities? Free will? (I'd be
> okay with that.) Or do they not need to qualify?

Anything that can be described as a noun is an entity in my book, whether abstract or not. We must be able to describe them by their attributes, and identify them by one attribute that is consistent over the lifetime in the universe of discourse. That's my take.

> I'd be okay with that
> as well. Personally, I think a system needs no qualification is needed
> but some way is needed to distinguish between them and it shouldn't be
> hidden from the programmer nor a user. If it's hidden from one but not
> the other, they might not be talking about the same entity and for me
> that's not a system.

I agree.

> This might sound mystical, but after all, Herman Melville has been
> called a mystic, so I'm not bothered about it as I've never seen him
> post here.
Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 15:17:29 CET

Original text of this message