Re: pro- foreign key propaganda?

From: David Cressey <>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:56:44 GMT
Message-ID: <0PBZj.511$3f1.84_at_trndny02>

"paul c" <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah> wrote in message news:5RzZj.289321$pM4.276671_at_pd7urf1no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> ...
> > This may be true. But with regard to the value of data in databases,
> > the return on the effort involved in building, maintaining, and
> > them, you can't separate meaning from purpose. And you can't separate
> > purpose from outcome. Call me a mystic, if you must.
> >
> > If poetry includes Homer's Iliad, there is quite a bit of mechanics
> > involved in the making of it.
> I don't argue with that and from what you've said I wouldn't call you a
> mystic. I was scoffing at the penchant for looking for meaning in a
> data design where none was intended. If one doesn't know the intended
> interpretation, it is a mug's game to guess at it, the design is only
> capable of restricting some of the possible intentions.
> (I'd say the mechanics of poetry aren't part of what you call the rdm.)

Agreed. I just don't want poetry to be relegated to the domain of mystics, and databases to be relegated to the domain of mechanics. Mechanics are important to doing things right, no matter what you're doing. Doing things right is kind of a waste, if you're not doing the right thing. And figuring out what the right thing is can seem downright mystical. At least, so it seems to me. Received on Fri May 23 2008 - 17:56:44 CEST

Original text of this message