Re: c.d.theory glossary

Timothy J. Bruce wrote:

> mAsterdam et al:

>>>`Formal Theory' should be included.
>>>The term `Formal Theory' will also REQUIRE:
>>>    Object (n): `Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.'
>>>Because `Formal Theory' is included, we must EXCLUDE:
>>>    Object in any sense other than above
>>
>>'Object' is also used to mean (ISO):	
>>"model of an entity, characterised by behaviour and state.", with  	
>>'Entity' as "thing of interest".
>>
>>Would you object (heh) to that use?

As long as there isn't, we are stuck with less than formal descriptions. I just don't like it that every time these words are used there is a big detailed discussion, and after many posts it appears there was a simple misunderstandig about the meaning of a word, and most of the discussion turns out to have been useless.

> Since there is no *FORMAL* theory on `object' it would be
> irresponsible, misleading, and dangerous to the comp.database.THEORY
> group if we were to include any other sense of `object' than the
> philosophical sense, which is why I do invoke the intransitive verb
> sense in this post (HHOS).

It would be all those things to require formality from all entries in the glossary. Even more so if you would only require it from an appearantly problematic term.

> I do hate to remind you, who are doing us
> all a great favour by assuming the role lexicographer and making this
> keen glossery, that this is a THEORY group, and not an implementation
> group.

Ha! That was one of things I had some difficulty with. There is a lot of implementation specifics discussed in this group, and I don't mind *if* the main point is of a more general importance. For instance NULL, though an implementation thingy, should be in the glossary, but not how say DB2 implements it.

> The philosophical sense, by the way, is agreeable by all peoples,
> programmers and nonprogrammers alike, and adequately addresses the
> first O in OOP also.

... but fails to reflect the meaning as it is used in most discussions here.

> I'm serious here,
Are you suggesting I am not? Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 04:10:07 CEST