Re: A real world example

JOG wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>[snip]
>>By accepting his misuse of vocabulary, you encourage and legitimize the
>>illegitimate while you interfere with communication and comprehension.
>>Is it your goal to understand theory or to market the services of
>>ignorants at the expense of their potential clients and other stakeholders?

>>[snip]
>>I disagree that the concept of surrogate vs. natural is useful. A
>>natural key is merely a familiar surrogate.

It is a surrogate for whatever a surrogate key is for. Think of any natural key. How is it not a surrogate?

My name is not me. It is an arbitrary identifier chosen by my parents. It is familiar because I was conditioned from an early age to respond to it.

My SSN is not me. It is an arbitrary identifier chosen by the IRS to identify tax filings related to my income. It is familiar because I was given a little blue card with it inscribed, and I was instructed to transcribe it to a variety of documents.

My driver's license is not me. It is an arbitrary identifyer chosen by the province to identify records related to my driving history. It is familiar because I was given a little card with it inscribed next to my picture, and I was instructed to present the card or transcribe the number in a variety of situations.

I am not suitably represented for machine processing. Whatever identifier we use for me in the database is not me. It is only a surrogate for me.

Historically, back when folks debated the merits of natural keys, what folks identified as natural keys were nothing more or less than familiar surrogate keys. The arguments against natural keys relate mostly to control.

The IRS controls my SSN. The province controls my driver's license number. When any other organization chooses to use those identifiers, they choose to have no control.

When any other organization chooses to create a surrogate, they simply create another arbitrary identifier but under their control. That identifier then becomes a natural key.

For example, when I get hired at a company, they give me an employee number. They tell me what it is and instruct me to transcribe it to a number of documents (some on a recurring basis) etc.

>>The self-aggrandizing
>>ignorant now has you redefining terms to make "surrogate" synonymous
>>with "stable" and to make "natural" synonymous with "unstable".

When he uses 'surrogate' as a synonym for 'stable' and 'natural' as a synonym for 'unstable', you respond to what he posts as if he made the substitution and without suggesting the definitions are unsuitable. Thus, you implicitly accept his terminology whether you understand it that way or not. To any external observer, such as myself, your actions indicate you accept the definitions.

> I view a surrogate as a 'substitute' for an unrecordable distinguishing
> attribute or set of attributes. This is the only logical definition
> that I am currently happy with.

That definition is fair enough. Thus, any time we use a value to identify anything other than the value itself, it is a surrogate for something else.

  It does not require stability by
> definition, and I have only ever stated that stability is an attractive
> quality and hence often appropriate to good design. That's my current
> standpoint, and so that is what should or should not be criticized.

With all due respect, you have also stated that agreement exists where none does, and you have also denied the existence of contention that does exist.

> Nevertheless I do not think you understood where Brian's mistakes stem
> from, and that's what I have been looking for. It appears to be a
> fundamental difference in what he views _identity_ to be. If the OP
> does not maintain this basic concept of identity as we do (and as Codd
> and Liebniz did) then there is little point in debating natural or
> surrogate keys with him at all. The problem goes far deeper than that.

His mistakes are simple. He is a self-aggrandizing ignorant spouting nonsense. He hasn't a clue what the terms he uses even mean. He spouts nonsensical malaprops expecting you to transform them into something cogent, and you happily comply.

You are now giving him a platform from which to pretend to debate Liebniz and Codd as if he were a peer. ::rolls eyes::

There is little point debating anything with such a self-aggrandizing ignorant, which leaves me wondering why you continue to debate him. Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 21:00:37 CEST