Re: Using the RM for ADTs

"Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message news:brF5m.385$N5.261_at_nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message
> news:h3u5m.6348$vO4.5741_at_flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:qrq5m.1699$P5.158_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>
>>> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s4m5m.9183$Jb1.432_at_flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>> ... there must be a means to distinguish between the nodes and the
>>>> resistors, for things that are indistinguishable are the same thing:
>>>> that is the essence of identity.
>>>
>>> It does my soul good to hear you say that, Brian. It seems like you're
>>> half way to adopting a common sense understanding of what identity is.
>>>
>>> Dare I hope for the other half?
>>
>> If the 'other half' involves conflating identification with identity or
>> taking things out of context, then don't hold your breath.
>
> Forget it.
>
> I'm guessing that, at the database level, I probably do conflate
> identification with identity. And I'm not interested in the philosophical
> level on this score.

It's not a question of philosophy. Identity and identification are completely different concepts. In particular, identity involves all properties while identification involves just those properties that serve to distinguish one object from another. There can be many sets of properties that identify something at any given time, but only something that has all the same properties at all times can be considered identical.

> The closest I get to ontology is entity-relationship modeling.

What does ontology to do with identity and identification? Or taking things out of context?

> As far as taking things out of context goes, I'd have to say that you are
> a past master at that. Or let me correct that. You repeatedly come to
> the conclusion that everybody else is out of step with you. So you have
> your own context. Have fun!

I have never come to the conclusion that everybody else is out of step with me. I have read numerous academic papers that at least in part support the positions I take, and I have in the past cited some of them here, so I don't consider myself out of step. On the other hand, I should point out that while I am willing to think outside the box, some here on c.d.t. aren't, whether out of an irrational fear or an unthinking zeal I can't really say. Received on Fri Jul 10 2009 - 16:17:07 CEST