Re: storing survey answers of different data types

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:16:13 GMT
Message-ID: <hJNIl.24285$Db2.11343_at_edtnps83>


Joe Thurbon wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:43:25 +1000, paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>
>> Joe Thurbon wrote:
...
> Yep.
>

>> assuming we are not talking about what Codd called a 'dictionary'.

>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
> ...

Oh, I just threw that qualification in to cover my lack of interest in 'dictionaries', as I found his use of that term a little opaque, admit I didn't read much of what he wrote about that. For one thing he was quite interested in a dictionary that would store and categorize programs as well as invoke them (I know this first-hand, although I was too shy to ask him about it). One source that mentions it is his 1990 book, which used to be downloadable for free from acm, maybe still is. If not, and if you don't have it, I could try emailing it to you but it's pretty big and might not be worth the trouble just for that topic.   I think his 1970 paper hit the nail on the head (without resort to a wrench), in similar fashion to Cimode's example, when he described how to take a hierarchy apart. Maybe he didn't intend it this way, but part of the message seemed to me to be that he was unravelling types as he went along, adding attributes as he went. But what seems to me to be the most important point in all of this is how being presented with a certain data design can change how one thinks about possible application requirements, which Cimode illustrated by avoiding 'one table per questionnaire' (I doubt that Roy H would object to that). I think it is very important because there is a point of view that seems helpful to must start with when making relational data designs and even though I find it hard to express in words, without that attitude most of the technical aspects such as SQL or even the algebra don't get one very far. As far as I'm concerned some of the terse responses we see lately here regarding design questions are too terse, those ripostes should be reserved for obvious technical blunders. (This coming from somebody who would agree that most of the western world prizes political correctness more than correctness.) Received on Sun Apr 26 2009 - 02:16:13 CEST

Original text of this message