Re: Why bother with Logical data model?

Y'all are spinning your wheels without an "X" somewhere in the name, preferably at the front, IMHO.

TroyK

Bob Badour 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?
>
> 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?
Received on Fri Aug 11 2006 - 01:38:26 CEST