Re: some information about anchor modeling

From: Eric <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:23:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>

On 2012-11-28, vldm10 <> wrote: > On Monday, November 5, 2012 11:10:05 PM UTC+1, Eric wrote:

>> On 2012-11-04, vldm10 <> wrote:
>> ...

>>>> Google gives a Safari book preview of a few lines, below. (I have the
>>>> book, this enough to give you an idea of his usage, introduced here.)
>>>> See re kernel
>>>> entities of RM/T.

>>> Let me comment only few basic things from this web site. In the section
>>> "Summary of RM/T", the following basic concepts are defined:

>> (re-ordered)
>>> (ii) Definition
>>> A nonentity is some thing that is not an entity.
>>> my comment: Note that "entity" and "thing" are synonyms.

>> Selective quoting is never a good way to try to make a point. The
>> sentence before says "An entity is some thing in the modelled universe",
>> i.e. a definition if "entity" in the current context. A thing that is
>> not in the modelled universe is not an entity so the two words are not
>> synonyms. Simple.
>>> (i) Definition
>>> Surrogates. A surrogate is a unique value assigned to each entity. 
>>> my comment: The entity is the real world object and it is not possible
>>> to assign value to the real world object.

>> I can assign value to anything I choose. I can make my system assign *a*
>> value to its representation of an entity. There are two distinct
>> meanings of "value" there. Either way your comment is just wrong.
>>> (iii) Definition
>>> The RM/T addresses atomic semantics by.
>>> my Comment: With the most carefully observing the RM / T, one could not
>>> find a single atom of the semantics, because in the RM/T, section 4,
>>> E. Codd wrote: "Database users may cause the system to generate or delete
>>> a surrogate, but they have no control over its value, nor is its value
>>> ever displayed to them."

>> There are various things one could say about Codd's statement you have
>> quoted, but what the blazes has it got to do with atomic semantics? I
>> suspect that you have totally misunderstood the meaning of "atomic
>> semantics" in the context of that web page.
>> Or, to put it another way, nothing you are saying makes any sense at
>> all.
> I did not use "selective quoting", I wrote about surrogate keys, entities
> and atomic semantics. These are the basic concepts of RM/T. In fact,
> I wrote about nonsense in the paper RM/T.

You quoted one sentence from the web site. You chose not to quote the sentence before it. You selected what to quote so that your (otherwise nonsensical) comment on it would make some sort of sense. _That_ is selective quoting, one of the many forms of argument by deception.

> For example, the following sentence: "An entity is some thing in the
> modelled universe and is typically identified by a surrogate." is not
> true, because Codd's surrogate does not identify an entity. In many cases,
> the surrogate introduced by E. Codd, cannot identify anything. In fact,
> Codd's surrogate is serious nonsense.

You are now saying that something is wrong because it is wrong. The concept of the surrogate is not nonsense, you simply do not understand it!

> The paper RM/T has many other mistakes; some of these mistakes are > related to fundamentals from the theory of database.

The paper may or may not contain mistakes. I don't think you have made a proper identification of any, let alone explaining why they are mistakes or how they might be fixed.

> I am writing about this, because I have impression that there are people > who try to "fix" RM/T paper, by using works which are done by others.

And you object to this? Why?


ms fnd in a lbry
Received on Fri Nov 30 2012 - 00:23:20 CET

Original text of this message