Re: A real world example
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:22:59 GMT
Message-ID: <73kFg.51108$pu3.597935_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
J M Davitt wrote:
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>
>> "JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message >> news:1155809294.447326.279260_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> >>> Brian Selzer wrote: >>> >>>> [snip]
>
> [more snip]
>
>> Then the model should take this into account in its definition. That >> may embody changing the definition of a key, or changing its treatment >> of attributes in the definition of a relation schema, or both. You >> can define multiplicity constraints, and that is defined in the >> model. Maybe you could define mutability constraints, and include >> that in the model. Maybe the entity integrity rule could be changed >> to include restrictions against mutable attributes as well as nullable >> attributes. I don't know. All I know is that I can break it, and >> that should be addressed somehow.
>
> Stop right there!
>
> On "conceptual model of transactions" we learned of /replacement/
> updates and /modification/ updates and some obscure theory of
> transactions.
>
> Earlier we got /individual/ and /universal/ attributes and some
> vague requirement that the relational model - or DBMS - keep track
> of which was which and somehow treat them differently.
>
> Now we see there exist /multiplicity constraints/ and /mutability
> constraints/ and /entity integrity/ rules and /restrictions against
> nullable attributes/.
>
> [Such a fertile field, this database theory; so much is unknown!]
It's gets a lot more fertile after the self-aggrandizing ignorants spread so much fertilizer on it.
> Brian, please stop making this stuff up! You say, "I can break
> it, and that should be addressed somehow." Then you carry on trying
> to convince us that the database should provide a solution to the
> problem you face. All along, we've been saying, "If these things
> are problems, your design is broken."
Why not call the fertilizer what it is? It's horseshit plain and simple. Brian spreads it liberally. It requires almost no effort on his part to make up a new malaprop. I suggest you think about the meaning of Date's _Principle of Incoherence_ and what it says about who has the advantage when it comes to addressing cranks and charlatans.
> Let me ask: is the surrogate immutable?
You just asked him to expend no effort whatsoever making up nonsense to require a great deal of effort on your part to reply. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 16:22:59 CEST