Re: One-To-One Relationships
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:56:35 -0800 (PST)
On 30 nov, 15:17, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.
> > 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.
Friendly pun: is an entity an object? Received on Sat Dec 01 2007 - 19:56:35 CET