Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

On Nov 15, 11:26 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_ooyah.ac> wrote:
> 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.

It seems to me that to formally state that an attribute names a domain, rather than merely state it has a domain is rather typical computer science baggage!

> 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.

Without your comments I would be discouraged. Thanks! Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 07:36:26 CET