Re: One-To-One Relationships

"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:c93669ba-78e0-43cc-bc41-7ad1524e92a4_at_g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> 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