Re: Entity and Identity
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:40:23 -0300
Clifford Heath wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>> What specific defect in Nijssen's work absolutely forces you to invent
> No defect. I'm extending his work.
No defect? No deficiency? No limitation, if you find that more "charming"? I have no use for pointless extensions. I can certainly think of limitations--like the lack of support for schema evolution or for multiple application views--that would warrant considerable extension. But extension for extension sake? No thank you.
Given that Halpin formalized and extended Nijssen's text based methods with graphical methods, I fail to see a need to extend them back to text. (I am not a big fan of graphical analysis and pretty pictures, but I have to credit Halpin for making ORM and NIAM available in relatively inexpensive tools and for popularizing them.)
>> Have you even heard of Nijssen? With all due respect to Terry Halpin, >> did you even look at his bibliography? Do you have even a single clue >> about the nature of Halpin's work?
> I'm a personal friend of Terry, have stayed at his house,
> and I'm very familiar with his work, thanks very much.
That's nice. I suppose that's why you cite your friend Halpin and ignore the real source of his methods.
> Now if you can get over yourself, take a look at my work
> (which I make available *freely*) and you'll see it has
> substance, you charmless little man.
I note that mathematics and logic have exactly as much use for charm as internal combustion engines have for foreskins, and "little" is not an apt adjective for me--not at all. Sophistry relies on charm, but thus far, sophistry has contributed not one thing to the field.
If your work has substance, you will be able to describe at least one advance it makes succinctly and without any hand-wavy bullshit or ad hominem sales pitches. You already know what I concluded from what you have written so far. Received on Sun Sep 27 2009 - 22:40:23 CDT