Re: One-To-One Relationships
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:31:41 GMT
"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
> On Nov 30, 3:33 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_ooyah.ac> 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.
Do you mean anything that can be described as a singular noun, or just any old noun?
>> 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 - 17:31:41 CET