Re: Question on Structuring Product Attributes

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:47:53 -0800 (PST) Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Yes, it's a standard defined explicitly in terms of itself, not
> > > > in terms of RM. Your claim that, "SQL is [the] data sublanguage
> > > > defined in the RM" is thus denied.
> > >
> > > ??? The RM defined a Data Sublanguage, nothing else did; the first
> > > SQL was the rendition of the Data Sublanguage defined in the RM;
> > > the SQL Standard is the progressed definition of a portion of the
> > > Data Sublanguage defined in the RM; any SQL implementation is the
> > > progressed rendition of the Data Sublanguage defined in the RM.
> >
> > Words fail me, clearly.
>
> I accept that words fail you, but clearly ?
>
> Look, you are an academic, an abstractionist. ... You've been
> arguing for days, and I still have no idea what your intent is, what
> you are trying to prove.

I'm going to stop trying soon, not because I think I'm right and you're wrong, or any permutation thereof, but because of your certitude, and because when I try to restate your argument in my own words, you accuse me of stupidity or dishonesty. (Yes, "argument". Not as in "fight", but as in a sequence of logical statements intended to prove a conclusion. I'll adopt another word if you'll propose one.)

What I'm trying to prove is that the statement "SQL is [the] data sublanguage defined in the RM" is false. What I've learned is that the truth or falsity of that statement depends on the meaning of the word "defined".

My argument rests on the fact that the relational model doesn't define SQL, and SQL's definition -- i.e., the SQL Standard -- doesn't refer to the relational model.

That's what I mean by "defined". :-)

For you, none of that matters because (if I may paraphrase) SQL depends on RM for intellectual heritage. As you said,

> 1. The relational model defined a data sublanguage
> 1.a. Any data sublanguage that came after the data sublanguage
> defined in the RM, whether it references the RM or not, and which
> fulfils basic elements of the RM [1], is [ipso facto] *an*
> implementation (rendition) of the RM.
> 2. IBM System/R was a fully credited implementation (rendition) of
> the data sublanguage defined in the RM [1], working closely with the
> author of [1]
> 3. IBM/SQL was an fully credited implementation (rendition) of the
> data sublanguage defined in the RM, [1] working with the author of
> [1], and derived directly from [2]
> 4. The SQL standard was an un-credited implementation (rendition) of
> the data sublanguage defined in the RM [1], and derived directly from
> [3], and the documentation for [3]

I think it matters "whether it references the RM or not" (1a). In fact, I think that's all that matters. If I accept your line of reasoning, I suppose I have to accept your conclusion. I don't, but I see how you got there.

In short, I think we can agree:

        There exists a "defined" such that A defined B.

Or not. Surely, one of the two.

--jkl Received on Thu Feb 14 2013 - 02:36:28 CET