Re: Why bother with Logical data model?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:38:58 GMT
Message-ID: <SL%Cg.39317$pu3.516062_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:22:20 GMT, Bob Badour
>>><bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>JOG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have just invented a new layer called the 'conceptalogical layer'.
>>>>>It's meaningless obviously but sounds like just the sort of thing I
>>>>>could build a software business on. It's a winner I tell you
>>>>></cynicism>
>>>>
>>>>It's going to have a tough time competing against my new logceptysical
>>>>model. Let's see who gets the book deal first! ;)
>>>
>>> My money is on JOG. His term is easy to say. Yours is awkward.
>>
>>Darn! You are so right!
>>
>>> I take that back. *MY* model is better. I call it
>>>"Conilogisal". In accordance with the first syllable, I am prepared
>>>to accept bribes in order to leave the market to the two of you.
>>>Please be generous.
>>
>>Okay, nix the conceptysical. How about a 'New Age' database theory book?
>>Three levels of discourse: the inconceivable, the illogical and the
>>imaginary?
>>
>>Instead of analysis and design, we could have truth stretching to
>>achieve the inconceivable and transcendental meditation to find the third
>>But would it sell outside of Washington, Oregon and California? Then
>>again, does the database field even matter outside of those three states?
>
> Where does the "metaphysical layer" fit into this framework?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:38:58 GMT
Message-ID: <SL%Cg.39317$pu3.516062_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
David Cressey wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:4wKCg.38857$pu3.506126_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... >
>>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?
>
> Where does the "metaphysical layer" fit into this framework?
The "metaphysical" is the foundation upon which it all rests, of course; however, we in the New Age prefer to call it the "spiritual foundation". Received on Fri Aug 11 2006 - 15:38:58 CEST