Re: Modeling question...

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news: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.)

Perhaps it would be sufficient to categorize the outputs of the database as "semi-correct".
Let the users think about that one for a while! Received on Fri Oct 24 2008 - 09:57:36 CEST