Re: RM formalism supporting partial information
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:26:03 GMT
Message-ID: <%6O_i.209870$Da.19121_at_pd7urf1no>
Bob Badour wrote:
...
>
> Did you catch the part where it said an attribute is a domain? And then
> it went on to say a domain is a set of values.
Sorry if I'm too slow here, did you mean:
"An attribute a consists of a name N(a) and a domain D(a)"?
If so, I can see you read it less generously but more precisely than I did. Being a fan of the D&D definitions because I think they are pretty darned concise, I would have rather seem them here, that's why I fretted about "consists". It would be easy from the above to say that if an attribute consists (even in part) of a domain, that it then somehow includes a domain. I was probably reading it the way I wanted it to mean, but I can see it doesn't emphasize the independence of a "header" and, doesn't underline that an attribute names a domain.
Trying to match D&D prose must be pretty hard, so I hope this won't discourage David BL. As I've tried to say before, I think exercises like this are valuable in their own right. Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 03:26:03 CET