Re: One-To-One Relationships
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 04:37:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <0b49406f-b09a-4ffb-8742-dff2ee20623a_at_a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 2, 10:46 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 dec, 01:13, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:36 pm, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > You want me to explain the difference between the notion of "thing"
> > > and "fact"?
>
> > Yet /again/ you are put new words in my mouth. I never mentioned the
> > word "fact" in this context. I asked you to elucidate the distinction
> > between 'entity' and 'relationship', following your condescending
> > statements (and *sigh*'s) that the issue has been resolved, inferring
> > that not just me, but everyone involved in the debate here was foolish
> > even to be discussing it.
>
> Hmm, you're reading a bit more into my sighs than I intended you
> to. :-)
Ah the joys of non-verbal communication. Perhaps I reacted too vociferously, so apologies for any over-defensiveness.
>I wasn't so much putting words into your mouth as telling you
> what I think the definition of entity and relationship are. An entity
> is just a thing, and a relationship is just a fact, or, to be bit more
> precise, an instantiated predicate. Wasn't that what you asked?
>
Yet I find those definitions entirely unsatisfying. Is a relationship not a 'thing' too? Its a noun after all. And how else can one possibly describe an entity apart from through 'facts'?
Either way, I also see nothing threatening to conceptual modelling on accepting the view of both entities and relationships as 'things'. If one views every relationship in E/R as an associative entity say, with its own attributes, well what would be lost? Surely nothing. And yet schema changes become simpler, translation to propositional models becomes easier, etc.
> > > You do realize that your response to Reinier also had that ingredient,
> > > don't you? Although others were far more worse. .
>
> > So others were far worse yet you jumped on mine, because of my
> > renowned impoliteness?
>
> No, because I thought you were an intelligent, polite enough and
> therefore interesting person to have a discussion with. If you would
> be notoriously impolite then the result would be just another flame
> war.
>
> > > I don't think so. The ER model places entities and relationships on
> > > equal footing. On the contrary, I would claim that the RM is
> > > unbalanced and focuses too much on the relationships.
>
> > You don't think I was talking about the best role for entities? What?
> > Indeed I was sir.
>
> The subject under discussion at the moment I replied was wether the
> distinction between the notion of Entity en Relationship is well-
> defined, useful et cetera. Reinier hasn't said or claimed that the
> best role should be for Entities.
Then it looks like we have crossed wires. My impression is that proponents of OO and E/R as a model unto itself, promote entities as first class citizens of a model, whereas RM proponents and logicians do not, utilizing them as second class citizens to be talked /about/. As Reiner appears to place himself in the E/R bracket I'd very much think he is claiming the former.
>
> > "Seems" to follow? I have said /numerous/ times recently that I
> > believe that entities are useful at the conceptual level, following
> > extraction from the logical model, and yet you now say I believe
> > "entities are no use for reasoning?"
>
> So you don't find the breakdown into entities and relationships a bad
> thing? If so, then I have misunderstood and offer my apologies.
Absolutely not. At the conceptual level I believe this is how most people think, and the model is their to facilitate them after all. I just believe there are numerous conceptual models, all equally valid, that can emerge from a neutral logical one, and I fear entityrelationship thought as an end to itself can get one stuck in one brittle viewpoint (this is the same concern I have with XML).
>
> > > If the distinction is not useful and in
> > > fact bad for data modeling then this should somehow become apparent
> > > when you start working with such data models.
>
> > But it is very apparent Jan. A testament to that are the hundreds of
> > students I have encountered who end up very confused at the logical
> > layer because of it (and their pre-indoctrination in OO), dropping the
> > subject area as a result.
>
> Actually the problem is with OO is the same as with the RM, but at the
> other side of the spectrum. In OO the notion of entity is assumed to
> be central, in RM the notion of relationship is. Both are wrong.
>
> > > > Ought we just forgo all the /
> > > > ongoing/ issues in identity research, because FOL has its own
> > > > definition?
>
> > > Hm? FOL doesn't say much about identity. It just assumes you know how
> > > to tell which objects in the domain are the same or not.
>
> > FOL is based on Liebniz identity at its very heart, x = y -> AP [P(x)
> > <-> P(y)]. How is that saying nothing about the identity of entities?
>
> It simply posits the notion of identity and tells you what you can
> derive from it. It says nothing about where this identity relationship
> comes form or how it is established or that there may be different
> notions of identiy, et cetera.
>
> > And I still contend that questioning this notion of identity, and
> > hence the nature of entities, is worthy of discussion.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> -- Jan Hidders
Received on Sun Dec 02 2007 - 13:37:29 CET