Re: On Formal IS-A definition

From: Reinier Post <rp_at_raampje.lan>
Date: 06 May 2010 23:09:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4be34c10$0$14133$703f8584_at_textnews.kpn.nl>



paul c wrote:

>Bob Badour wrote:
>> Reinier Post wrote:

[something about a definition of is-a]

>> I thought Clinton settled this whole issue already. Cigar anyone?
>
>I think Clinton knew his silly language parsing didn't matter to the
>majority of his (semi-literate) public. What puzzles me is why smart
>people here spend time on such subjective fooferah and never bring up,
>say, just what the Information Principle really means.

I was taught about relational database theory without any mention of 'Clinton' or 'information principle'. Shit happens. I don't smoke, either. My definition is of "is-a" is crystal clear, unlike the information principle, but I do think I invoked just that principle as an argument to justify the definition.

A reference to 'Clinton' would be most appreciated. (Google isn't particularly helpful, as expected.)

-- 
Reinier
Received on Thu May 06 2010 - 18:09:04 CDT

Original text of this message