Re: A real world example

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:pXJEg.49046$pu3.575264_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> 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?
>>
>> Of course not. All corrections are welcomed Bob.
>>
>>
>>>[snip]
>>>I disagree that the concept of surrogate vs. natural is useful. A
>>>natural key is merely a familiar surrogate.
>>
>> By this I am unclear what a natural key is a surrogate for. If you
>> could spend some time expanding this definition, or referencing it, I'd
>> appreciate it.
>
> 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".
>>
>> Piffle, bob. I have not adopted any of his terminology in my effort to
>> engage him, and you are misrepresenting my understanding of terms.
>
> 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.

If I'm an ignorant, then where do you fall. You can't come up with a decent argument to counter mine. Yours are baseless and inane. Yet you continue with these arguments even when confronted with citations from both Codd and Date. Who, then, is self-aggrandizing? I think you need to take the log out of your own eye. Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 21:21:37 CEST