Re: Why bother with Logical data model?

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:01:36 GMT, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:22:20 GMT, Bob Badour
>> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>JOG wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have just invented a new layer called the 'conceptalogical layer'.
>>>>It's meaningless obviously but sounds like just the sort of thing I
>>>>could build a software business on. It's a winner I tell you
>>>></cynicism>
>>>
>>>It's going to have a tough time competing against my new logceptysical
>>>model. Let's see who gets the book deal first! ;)
>>
>> My money is on JOG. His term is easy to say. Yours is awkward.
>
>Darn! You are so right!

>> I take that back. *MY* model is better. I call it
>> "Conilogisal". In accordance with the first syllable, I am prepared
>> to accept bribes in order to leave the market to the two of you.
>> Please be generous.
>
>Okay, nix the conceptysical. How about a 'New Age' database theory book?
>Three levels of discourse: the inconceivable, the illogical and the
>imaginary?

     You could not afford a lousy bribe?

     New Age tops mine, but your vocabulary needs work.  I suggest:
          the ineffable: or the unmanifest.  You could even use the
Sanskrit "arvyatka".
          the logic-free: kind of like Dawn's idiotic NFNF.
          the imagal: The image would be too plain a term.

>Instead of analysis and design, we could have truth stretching to
>achieve the inconceivable and transcendental meditation to find the third i.
>
>But would it sell outside of Washington, Oregon and California? Then
>again, does the database field even matter outside of those three states?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Thu Aug 10 2006 - 23:32:25 CEST