Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Brian Selzer <brian_at_selzer-software.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:44:14 GMT
Message-ID: <yThvj.10031$0o7.8531_at_newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>


"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:7159188a-033b-4136-9eb2-a144f93f50a2_at_f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 5:21 am, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:

>> "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:156959c5-ac15-487c-a4a6-51f08734c0b6_at_d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 5:10 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> What complete and utter nonsense! Why, oh why, Jim, do you inflict 
>> >> this
>> >> on the rest of us?
>>
>> Translation: Get back in step, you idiot!  Hup...Two...Three...Four....
>>
>

> Bah, cheeky monkey. To be fair, It did make me think about the
> inordinate amount of time I'm spending defining 'data' on cdt though.
> I think I have enough now to see the range of varying opinions. All of
> which are wrong apart from mine of course ;) (Although David makes a
> good case). I still have to digest what you wrote Brian, but you've
> given me food for thought in the past concerning 6NF (and that's I
> would like to talk about again at some point). Regards, J.
>

Some of my screwy ideas come from trying to apply Zalta's Theory of Abstract Objects to database relational theory. Here's a link:

http://mally.stanford.edu/theory.html

The theory is a formal, axiomatic, treatment of objects, both abstract and ordinary (concrete), that is based upon an extension to first order modal logic. The extension distinguishes between abstract and ordinary objects by employing separate forms of predication: while ordinary objects exemplify properties, abstract objects encode properties.

The reason I bring this up is that the language of the theory includes a set of individual constants, and under an interpretation, there is a function that maps each constant that denotes to an object in the universe of discourse. For particulars, the constants are the individual constants; for more complex objects--those composed by combining particulars in various ways--the constants are definite descriptions, since definite descriptions are required to be rigid. So each constant that denotes refers to an object in the universe. It is the object in the universe, the output of the interpretation function, that is a value. My point is that in order to be data, a value must be referenced by a proposition that is also supposed to be the case. Wittgenstein's world, if you will.

Hope this helps to explain my screwy idea of what constitutes data.

>> >> [snip]
>>
>> > Y'know, I have no idea. I think it must be wishful thinking.

>
Received on Thu Feb 21 2008 - 17:44:14 CET

Original text of this message