Principle of Orthogonal Design

From: JOG <>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

I was wondering what your current stances towards the principle of current design is cdt - info about the POOD is actually pretty sparse on google, which has not helped my own understanding. I gather that Date has realigned his opinion - although what to I know not - and that Darwen rejected the original POOD paper outright given that McGovern posits that:

R2 { A INTEGER, B INTEGER } violates the principle, whatever the relations' attribute names. Instinctively it does seem rather odd that a predicates such as:

  • on Day:X the shop had noCustomers:Y
  • on Roll:A, the dice showed the Number:B

cannot share the same database. Have I interpreted the debate correctly? Any insights or corrections are, as ever, appreciated - POOD is certainly thought provoking, and the concept that an update need not require specifcation of a table name is an interesting one. Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 02:51:15 CET

Original text of this message