Re: Another view on analysis and ER

From: JOG <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:47:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <ac732232-7458-4521-a8a7-519b2294d45e_at_l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>


On Dec 6, 12:18 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 dec, 13:52, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 5 dec, 02:10, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > So why on earth would /anyone/ want to drop step 3? I'm at a loss as
> > > > to why certain cdt'ers (who are clearly intelligent people) seem to be
> > > > advocating this. An absolute loss I tell you.
>
> > > I'm not sure that is what Ruud is saying. Anyone else?
>
> > Is this not what you were proposing yourself Jan in another thread -
> > that the logical layer should not be neutral, but rather based on
> > entities and relationships (and hence taking a specific conceptual
> > viewpoint)?

Did I misunderstand, or is this not what you currently favour?

>
> Why would an ER schema be necessarily less neutral than a relational
> schema?
>
> -- Jan Hidders

Either we are crossing terminology, or this has already been highlighted earlier in the thread with reference to marriages. E/R forces one to pick a single conceptual viewpoint (marriage as relationship/marriage as entity, etc), whereas a propositional encoding is neutral on the topic. Received on Thu Dec 06 2007 - 02:47:33 CET

Original text of this message