Re: Guessing?

From: paul c <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:10:42 GMT
Message-ID: <63z6k.38054$gc5.18499_at_pd7urf2no>

Brian Selzer wrote:

> "paul c" <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah> wrote in message 
> news:etU_j.167881$rd2.59570_at_pd7urf3no...
>> Brian Selzer wrote:

>>> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:483ac46d$0$4069$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
>>>> paul c wrote:
>>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
...

>>>> With POOD, any tuple satisfies the predicate of at most one relation in 
>>>> the dbms. Thus, with POOD, the dbms can calculate a unique relation to 
>>>> which to apply any insert, update or delete with the goal of avoiding 
>>>> anomalous behaviour.
>>>>

>>> This just does not make sense. Suppose that a Vendor can also be a
>>> Customer since they're both Companies, and suppose that Company 'Philco'
>>> usually supplies 'RG6 connectors,' but occasionally buys them. So then
>>> if you have two relations,

>>>

>>> VendorParts {Company, Part},

>>>

>>> CustomerParts {Company, Part},

>>>

>>> that enumerate the parts that a company supplies and the parts that a
>>> company buys respectively,

>>>

>>> the tuple, {Company:'Philco', Part:'RG6 connector'}, can obviously appear
>>> in both relations, so I don't buy the notion 'any tuple satisfies the
>>> predicate of at most one relation.'
>>> ...

>>
>> Isn't this a straw man too?  (arguing against POOD with an example that 
>> doesn't follow POOD.)
> 
> I think it does follow POOD, but I think Badour's overstrict interpretation 
> of POOD is flawed. 
> 
> 

In that case, why don't you state your interpretation (in less than say 50 words or so I could hope). Received on Thu Jun 19 2008 - 22:10:42 CEST