Re: Ping: dawn, some mvl questions

dawn wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>

>>Kenneth Downs wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>I am in the school of thought that says that if you need a list, make a
>>>table, that's what the RM is for.
>>
>>(Not about MV but sets/lists)
>>
>>I am in school of thought that says that if you see a list, it might
>>be set that is meant. People often don't need to distinguish
>>between them for day to day purposes,

Hm... I sound like a broken record. It depends on the context.

Scenario:
Say you are going to shop way to late (it's almost shop-closing time). You know you won't be able to get all items on the list. You are throwing a party tonight, and your partner (who always says: "First things first") wrote the list. Sure you'll be selective, and weighing necessities for the party (forget about the toothpaste and floorwax) - but for two items (/members) having the same party weight, having to guess, I'ld treat the list as a list, and look for the items in order. Then again if I found one item (5 baguettes) and another item way down in the list (2 paper table cloths) is in the immediate vicinity of the found one I'ld grab it anyway.

> Retaining the order of something represented as a list might just
> provide ongoing information never verbalized.

Yes. You can't tell from just looking at the content.

> If a user lists
> something in an order, but we have defined it as a set because there
> has been no overt statement of the meaning of the order, might be
> losing information?

Yes. OTOH, you might be adding misinformation be assuming the order relevant. My point was (and is):

You can't tell from just looking at the content. You'll have to investigate.

P.S.
Giving the scenario an unrealistic twist: Say you and your partner share the shopping data using a PDA-app where groceries are treated as a relation: now you know the order in the representaion is irrelevant. You don't have to guess, but you also have no guidance from the order of the grocery-list. Received on Sun May 21 2006 - 15:35:35 CEST