Re: It's pizza-time again (was: c.d.theory glossary - RELATION)

>"x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:40963516$1_at_post.usenet.com...
> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> news:40937db9$0$64453$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
>
> > This was just an introduction to expand on my uneasy feeling
> > towards equating 'thing' and 'fact'.
> >
> > In that context I also used a distinction:
> >
> > _thing_ :
> > pizza, topping, table, clock, customer, onion, order, order-item.
> > (now I am not so sure about the last two).
> >
> > _fact_ :
> > "It's 4 p.m", "We are out of onions",
> > "the customer at table 12 ordered 2 neapolitan icecreams".
>
> From these lists I would infer:
> _thing_ = "material" noun.
> _fact_ = occured event, occurence
>
> Sounds like the distinction between TO BE and TO OCCUR

I think of it as a difference between IS (a thing, an entity) and IS TRUE (a proposition, predicate). So, when talking about "files" the name and description of the file describe the entity and the attributes are considered information about that entity -- something that "IS". If we have a PERSON entity/file/function, then GENDER is an attribute of that PERSON, that entity that IS.

In the RM one would talk more about the header for the relationship PERSON (some might inaccurately call it a relation) including the attribute GENDER. GENDER is part of the predicate associated with PERSON. The values of GENDER yield true statements/propositions. It seems to me that the header of the RELATIONSHIP provides the metadata for the IS TRUE relationships and the notion of an entity is not formally needed nor present. The ENTITY concept helps people who are doing data modeling, but from what I have seen, there is not need for it in the formal RM.

> > Am I the only one to use this distinction?
>
> No. You are not alone. :-)
ditto. --dawn

<snip> Received on Mon May 03 2004 - 18:12:46 CEST