Re: Has E/R had a negative impact on db?
From: J M Davitt <jdavitt_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:25:02 GMT
Message-ID: <OVl3g.19127$mh.18763_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> Similarly, Date and Darwen have dropped the term 'domain' in
>>>favour of 'type', which decision certainly eliminates a lot of
>>>explaining.
>>
>>In TTM3, they've stopped using familiar terms because they were familiar
>>terms; no longer does the prose seem to gently guide readers along the
>>path to enlightenment. (This, I think, is due mostly to Darwen's
>>style.)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:25:02 GMT
Message-ID: <OVl3g.19127$mh.18763_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
Jon Heggland wrote:
> J M Davitt wrote: >
>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> Similarly, Date and Darwen have dropped the term 'domain' in
>>>favour of 'type', which decision certainly eliminates a lot of
>>>explaining.
>>
>>In TTM3, they've stopped using familiar terms because they were familiar
>>terms; no longer does the prose seem to gently guide readers along the
>>path to enlightenment. (This, I think, is due mostly to Darwen's
>>style.)
> > > Do you consider the term "type" unfamiliar?
Good point; no, of course not. My meaning was not clear.
Date, it seems, has tried to use terms that already had currency but gave them careful and precise definitions which did not differ drastically from their generally-understood meaning. The subtle distinctions were lost on many readers. (His definitions of some terms, however, were very different, and he seemed to make the effort to emphasize those differences.) In his later writings, I sense much less tenancy to continue doing so. Received on Tue Apr 25 2006 - 11:25:02 CEST