Re: Modeling question...

From: paul c <>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:52:28 GMT
Message-ID: <wLJLk.3213$fF3.1733_at_edtnps83>

Roy Hann wrote:
> And before I leave this alone, there is no such thing a
> "semi-structured" data. That term makes as much sense as
> semi-understood knowledge. The concept that people using that term
> might be struggling to convey is "semi-shared business model", or to put
> it another way, "(only) some of us know what (only) some of this
> means". My attitude to that is fine, just don't expect me to know
> what any of it means.

Heh, in other words, semi-understood data?

Ironic how "not-invented-here" so often actually means "invented here".

(Letting "semi-understood data" proliferate might be chaotic. Maybe in such a regime, to echo Walter M, it would be prudent to ensure that it be kept "semi-shared". Eg., amongst the EAV protagonists and their cronies. It usually seems to me that when these EAV proposals come up, the question is not that the organization needs new organization-wide "entities", for want of a better word, but additional attributes for existing relations. So, I'd think it might be okay from an integrity viewpoint to let them define their own tables which are partly based on organization-wide tables. At least everybody could stick with the usual relational ops. Not sure if I've ever seen this tried, though.) Received on Wed Oct 22 2008 - 19:52:28 CEST

Original text of this message