Re: compound propositions
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:13:22 -0300
Message-ID: <4ba2a50d$0$12427$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> Can't seem to find online the portion that this refers to (at least
> without paying), maybe I'll have to find a library that has them all.
> The ones I've seen aren't what I'd call formal, though they offer
> examples and context that may be valuable for starting discussions if
> nothing else.
>
> Which sections or portions refer to 'internal' for example?
>
>
> Personally as far a db is concerned, what is immeasurable is
> uninteresting (by 'immeasureable' or that which we can't take the
> measure of, I include 'un-nameable').
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:13:22 -0300
Message-ID: <4ba2a50d$0$12427$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
>> paul c wrote: >> >>> David BL wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> I wonder what is meant exactly by 'internal predicates' and 'external >>>> predicates'. I would appreciate it if someone could provide a >>>> definition. >>>> ... >> >> sigh See ISO/IEC 2382 -- defined there. >> >> I will start by directing you to the ISO/IEC 2382 standard >> vocabularies so that you will have the necessary grounding to >> understand the differences between conceptual, logical and physical as >> well as the definitive difference between information and data. The >> standard also defines internal and external. When I use these terms, I >> use the definions in ISO/IEC 2382. >> ...
>
> Can't seem to find online the portion that this refers to (at least
> without paying), maybe I'll have to find a library that has them all.
> The ones I've seen aren't what I'd call formal, though they offer
> examples and context that may be valuable for starting discussions if
> nothing else.
>
> Which sections or portions refer to 'internal' for example?
> Are
> relation or relvar 'headers' defined by ISO?
>> Once you have done so, the remainder of this post will be redundant. >> >> ...
>
>> Conceptually the predicate and its extension depend on all these >> factors; however, most of these factors are immeasurable and/or >> uninteresting. ...
>
> Personally as far a db is concerned, what is immeasurable is
> uninteresting (by 'immeasureable' or that which we can't take the
> measure of, I include 'un-nameable').
Within the scope of the formal model, I absolutely agree. Received on Thu Mar 18 2010 - 23:13:22 CET