Re: Peter Chen and Charles Bachman
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 13:44:10 -0500
Message-ID: <c7bcm3$9qk$1_at_news.netins.net>
"D Guntermann" <guntermann_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hx95nL.F8J_at_news.boeing.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:c7ando$tol$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > "Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>
wrote
> > in message news:pan.2004.05.05.02.38.23.931293_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...
> > > Em Tue, 04 May 2004 17:16:28 -0500, Dawn M. Wolthuis escreveu:
> > >
> > > >> Diagrams aren't models...
> > > >
> > > > I'll accept that diagrams, in themselves, are not full mathematical
> > > > theories, but models they often are, it seems to me. What is your
> > > > definition of "model" (as a noun)?
> > >
> > > A model must include all aspects of the database, or it will
> > > be only a draft.
>
> Wouldn't a model that includes all aspects of the database be an
> implementation? Perhaps the word "all" is a little strong.
>> > With the number of dialogs we have that include information relevant to
> >
> > databases, but "orthogonal" to relational theory, my conclusion is that
by
> > your definition relational theory is not a model -- is that correct?
>
> I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he is arguing just the
> opposite.
I omitted the implied wink -- sorry ;-) --dawn Received on Wed May 05 2004 - 20:44:10 CEST