Re: General semantics
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 18:23:16 -0300
Message-ID: <4bf6f8fc$0$11835$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> You are correct.
>
> Thanks for pointing out my misjudgment on this. Lately, I tend to
> have epidermic reactions to anything that mentions *Object* as a part
> of database theory since I face OO crowd on a daily basis telling me
> about mapping relations into classes: it gets frustrating. The
> initial content of the posts in this thread comforted me in my
> mistake.
>
> Does ORM really worth the effort of reading ? What does it add that is
> not already a part of RM?
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 18:23:16 -0300
Message-ID: <4bf6f8fc$0$11835$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Cimode wrote:
> Snipped
>
>>Cimode, you are just making a fool of yourself, again. ORM has nothing >>to do with the OO crowd. It is a graphical representation of NIAM.
>
> You are correct.
>
> Thanks for pointing out my misjudgment on this. Lately, I tend to
> have epidermic reactions to anything that mentions *Object* as a part
> of database theory since I face OO crowd on a daily basis telling me
> about mapping relations into classes: it gets frustrating. The
> initial content of the posts in this thread comforted me in my
> mistake.
>
> Does ORM really worth the effort of reading ? What does it add that is
> not already a part of RM?
NIAM is at the conceptual level of discourse and is useful for analysis. It has particular strengths for communicating with domain experts, who can more readily catch analytical errors when presented as formalized natural language sentences with examples, and who might otherwise misinterpret unfamiliar graphical representations.
In my experience, domain experts will never say "I don't understand your picture." They will interpret the picture to match their knowledge of the domain and happily change their interpretation in different contexts without ever noticing. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 23:23:16 CEST