>---------------
>Glossary 0.1.3 "You keep using that word.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Maintainer: mAsterdam
[...]
I like it.
Some remarks.
>[Address]
>A value, used to identify a location.
>What is to be found there is up to the rest of the system.
You don't define "value" yet.
>An address is a value used to locate ...
>A reference is a value used to refer ...
>
>The difference between *locate* and *refer* is crucial here.
Yes, but perhaps it should be explained?
Attempt: an address is a position in some address space:
unlike references, on which the only meaningful operations are
comparison for equality and dereferencing, operations such as
ordering and subtraction are meaningful on addresses.
[...]
>[Data]
>"Known facts that can be recorded and have implicit meaning."
>-- Fundamentals of Database Systems, Elmasri & Navathe.
Not so good: the same data can have different interpretations.
[...]
>Warning: tongue in cheek definition
>Information is what you want. Data is what you are given.
Makes sense. What is more, this is the literal meaning of "data".
>[Entity]
and
>[Graph]
(I like what you have here.)
>[Information]
>0. data in context, data with meaning.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>2. available data, relevant to some decision or action.
>Also see [Data].
I don't think this correct: information is not data with meaning,
it is meaning of data. Attempt: a bit of knowledge about the world,
being transmitted, that will update the total knowledge about the
world the receiver already has.
>[Information principle] (RM)
>Date/Codd:
>Chris Date in "EDGAR F. CODD 08/23/1923 – 04/18/2003 A TRIBUTE":
>The entire information content of a relational database
>is represented in one and only one way: namely, as
>attribute values within tuples within relations.
I understand the need for principles to be short,
but without context this borders on the trivial.
>[Key]
>A value, used to identify something.
>See also primary key, and (TODO:) foreign key.
Not a value, but an attribute or set of attributes.
(Or 'column(s)' if you prefer.)
The concept of key does not apply to individual objects or facts,
but to classes of them; not to rows, but to tables.
>[NULL]
>Roughly: a special marker that can be put in a place
>inside a data structure where an actual value is expected.
Isn't this *exactly* what NULL is?
>Precisely what that marker means varies and there are at
>least three possibilities that are sometimes assumed:
[...]
Yes, but strictly speaking, none of that is part of what NULL is.
>[Object]
>1. Model of an entity, characterised by behaviour and state. (ISO)
That's pretty lame if you ask me.
>[Primary key] (SQL, not RM)
>A key of a table, composed of one or more
>named columns, uniquely identifies a row in a table.
Only if you mean: such that every row's values for its key columns
uniquely identify that row in the table.
>A table can have only one primary key.
In other words: one such key, picked by the schema designer.
(How? I don't think there is a single universal criterion.)
>[Pointer]
>See address(*).
Yes.
>[Reference]
>A reference is a value, used to refer to something.
>A program can get the current value of that something
>(without ever knowing where it resides) by dereferencing,
>even if that something has been relocated between
>the time of first reference and the dereferencing.
I think you're right.
>[Relation]
[...]
>[Table/Column/Row] (SQL-DBMS)
[...]
A frequent distinction between relations with attributes and tuples
on one hand and tables with columns and rows on the other is that
rows and columns are usually assumed to be ordered, while attributes
and tuples are not. Another is that tables are considered to be
some visual or textual representation of relations. But neither
of those distinctions are universal in this newsgroup.
>[Theory]
>"Database management is a practical matter.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>want to know what theory has to say."
> -- Roy Hann, cdt dec 11, 2007
All this quote tells us is that the opposition of theory and practice
is easily misunderstood to mean that theory and practice contradict
each other, are at odds with each other. (Compare: design and evolution.)
>[Type]
>" TYPES are sets of things we can talk about;
>RELATIONS are (true) statements bout those things."
>-- Chris Date, Feb 2004
This is just wrong. A type is *not* a set. It is a description of
what certain individuals look like. Often, types and sets are used
together, e.g. we often speak of the set of all individuals of a
particular type, or we assume that all members of a sets
have the same type. But they are complementary notions.
>1. Set of possible values (i.e. IT equivalent of math 'domain').
>2. Set of possible values plus
>all possible operators defined on them. (i.e. synonymous to Class
>if 'class' is meant to include a possible set of values).
In the object-oriented world, a type is not a set; a class may be.
Often, type and class are both used, with connected, but different
meanings (e.g. in .NET, every class is of a certain type, but
not every type is the type of a class).
>[Type - 3rdM]
>In The Third Manifesto a type is:
>- a pattern (possible representation)
>- a domain for some operators (THE_xxx operators)
>- a codomain for some operators (the "constructors")
Does the Third Manifesto use the term 'class'?
>[Transaction]
>A set of database operations constituting a logical unit of work.
Rather: an explicit construct that imposes the treatment of a sequence
of database operations as a single unit of work.
>Most DBMS include the ability to rollback complete transactions
>when an error is detected.
>[[Issues]]
>
>RELATIONs vs. RELATIONSHIPs
>Can namespaces help to make some distance? In this case:
>RM.RELATION vs. ER.RELATIONSHIP
Good idea.

Signature
Reinier
mAsterdam - 02 Feb 2008 17:41 GMT
>> [Address]
>> A value, used to identify a location.
>> What is to be found there is up to the rest of the system.
>
> You don't define "value" yet.
I'll take this as a suggestion to add [Value] to the to-do list.
"Value" can indeed be problematic as we see whith NULL and Key.
>> An address is a value used to locate ...
>> A reference is a value used to refer ...
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Attempt: an address is a position in some address space:
> unlike references, on which the only meaningful operations are
s/meaningful //
> comparison for equality and dereferencing, operations such as
> ordering and subtraction are meaningful on addresses.
s/meaningful/possible/
Ok?
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Not so good: the same data can have different interpretations.
Only when you adhere to the idea that data may have no meaning.
As explained under [Information], this idea has caught on /outside/
the database realm.
> [...]
>
>> Warning: tongue in cheek definition
>> Information is what you want. Data is what you are given.
>
> Makes sense. What is more, this is the literal meaning of "data".
:-) , but I am not going to explain the joke in the glossary.
...
>> [Information]
>> 0. data in context, data with meaning.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I don't think this correct: information is not data with meaning,
> it is meaning of data.
That is a new one to me. Do you have a soure?
> Attempt: a bit of knowledge about the world,
> being transmitted, that will update the total knowledge about the
> world the receiver already has.
Media, Sign, Symbol, Data, Information, News, Meme, Knowledge, Wisdom;
borderlines between these shift even within discussions.
Is it feasible or even sensible to fixate these lines (yet)?
A short explanation of how you use terms in this area
will be necessary to prevent or end misunderstandings anyway.
I like these communication layers (bottom to top):
Fatic, Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic -
but I mostly take care to explain when using
them, sometimes even dropping the term itself.
>> [Information principle] (RM)
>> Date/Codd:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Not a value, but an attribute or set of attributes.
> (Or 'column(s)' if you prefer.)
Not just a value, but not just a set of attributes either.
The key as a set of attributes forms a constraint on which values to
use for identification.
Improvements welcome.
> The concept of key does not apply to individual objects or facts,
> but to classes of them; not to rows, but to tables.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Isn't this *exactly* what NULL is?
Arrgggh! (just search for 'NULL' in the archives for why).
Any objections to s/Roughly: a/A/ ?
>> Precisely what that marker means varies and there are at
>> least three possibilities that are sometimes assumed:
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, but strictly speaking, none of that is part of what NULL is.
Strictness is only an issue for the glossary in so far as it helps
preventing misunderstandings.
Believe me, there were misunderstandings in this area.
>> [Object]
>> 1. Model of an entity, characterised by behaviour and state. (ISO)
>
> That's pretty lame if you ask me.
Good. Yes, I'm asking you :-)
Coming up with an agreeable definition of 'Object' in cdt
will earn you real beer (in Amsterdam).
>> [Primary key] (SQL, not RM)
>> A key of a table, composed of one or more
>> named columns, uniquely identifies a row in a table.
>
> Only if you mean: such that every row's values for its key columns
> uniquely identify that row in the table.
Yes. Now how to rephrase this with only adding
the necessary complexity?
>> A table can have only one primary key.
>
> In other words: one such key, picked by the schema designer.
> (How? I don't think there is a single universal criterion.)
It is a trade-off. I like the list Bob Badour uses,
e.g. in thread "Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?" he wrote:
> The design criteria for keys are:
> uniqueness, irreducibility, simplicity, stability and familiarity
> (in no particular order.)
...
>> [Table/Column/Row] (SQL-DBMS)
> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> rows and columns are usually assumed to be ordered, while attributes
> and tuples are not.
Columns may be ordered or named.
There are corresponding formalisms: the unnamed (why not 'ordered'?
I really need to read the Alice book) perspective and the named
perspective. I just learned that.
> Another is that tables are considered to be
> some visual or textual representation of relations. But neither
> of those distinctions are universal in this newsgroup.
Yes. The qualification (SQL-DBMS) is explicit nevertheless.
>> [Theory]
>> "Database management is a practical matter.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> This is just wrong.
It is meant as an educational step, not a formal definition.
He really said it. I was there.
I even asked him if it was ok to quote it.
If you don't agree you'll have to ask him.
> A type is *not* a set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system says
"A type indicates a set of values that have the same sort of generic
meaning or intended purpose"
indicate, is .. It depends on what your definition of is is.
Why am I suddenly thinking of cigars?
> It is a description of
> what certain individuals look like. Often, types and sets are used
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> In the object-oriented world, a type is not a set; a class may be.
Do you have a reference? The object-oriented 'world' is quite
diverse, often vague, and sometimes off-beat in its use of terms
(The scarequotes are because I see object orientation as just a
collection of ways to organize program-code, not a paradigm,
let alone a world).
> Often, type and class are both used, with connected, but different
> meanings (e.g. in .NET, every class is of a certain type, but
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Does the Third Manifesto use the term 'class'?
First edition, P 15:
In discussing "What concept is it in the relational world that is the
counterpart to the concept /object class/ in the object world",
(yes, the same megalomania here, twice) they argue that the answer to
this question should be "domain".
>> [Transaction]
>> A set of database operations constituting a logical unit of work.
>
> Rather: an explicit construct that imposes the treatment of a sequence
> of database operations as a single unit of work.
For the sake of consistency, we want a logical unit of work to
be carried out or not.
Wether the unit is implicit or explicit matters in the
ease of its discovery, nothing more.
A sequence implies order of the elements and would
require serial execution. Wether the elements are
executed serially or in parallel is not relevant.
>> Most DBMS include the ability to rollback complete transactions
>> when an error is detected.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Good idea.
Thank you, and thank you for contributing.
Bonus exercise: Pinpoint the fatic, syntactic, semantic
and pragmatic aspects of the content of these instructions.
<unsnip>
>> How to contribute
>> -----------------
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>
>> Thank you for contributing.
</unsnip>
Fatics: "How to contribute" and "Thank you for contributing"
Syntax: Form: etc...
Praxis: Please keep in mind ...
Semantics: The remainder.
rpost - 16 Feb 2008 22:45 GMT
[...]
>> Attempt: an address is a position in some address space:
>> unlike references, on which the only meaningful operations are
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Ok?
Yes, probably better.
>>> [Data]
>>> "Known facts that can be recorded and have implicit meaning."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Only when you adhere to the idea that data may have no meaning.
No.
>> [...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>:-) , but I am not going to explain the joke in the glossary.
Well, of course the meaning of "data" could have floated
farther away from its origins than it has.
>>> [Information]
>>> 0. data in context, data with meaning.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>That is a new one to me. Do you have a soure?
Oxford English Dictionary:
information (noun)
1 facts or knowledge provided or learned.
2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular sequence of symbols,
impulses, etc.
Wikipedia:
Information is the state of a system of interest.
Message is the information materialized.
I'd say "message" is "data", but I was trying to provide a more
general description than "state of a system of interest".
The OED does it better.
>I like these communication layers (bottom to top):
>Fatic, Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic -
>but I mostly take care to explain when using
>them, sometimes even dropping the term itself.
I'd never heard of fatic, but you explained it well (on Apr 7, 2006).
>>> [Key]
>>> A value, used to identify something.
>>> See also primary key, and (TODO:) foreign key.
[...]
>Improvements welcome.
"One or more relation attributes that form the left hand side
of a functional dependency, i.e. such that all different relation
tuples differ in the value of at least one of these attributes." ?
>>> [NULL]
>>> Roughly: a special marker that can be put in a place
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Arrgggh! (just search for 'NULL' in the archives for why).
>Any objections to s/Roughly: a/A/ ?
None at all.
[...]
>Coming up with an agreeable definition of 'Object' in cdt
>will earn you real beer (in Amsterdam).
I'll think about it.
>>> [Primary key] (SQL, not RM)
>>> A key of a table, composed of one or more
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Yes. Now how to rephrase this with only adding
>the necessary complexity?
I don't think it can be done.
>>> A table can have only one primary key.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > uniqueness, irreducibility, simplicity, stability and familiarity
> > (in no particular order.)
Looks good. Add it to the lemma then? You also have stuff about NULL ...
[...]
>Columns may be ordered or named.
>
>There are corresponding formalisms: the unnamed (why not 'ordered'?
>I really need to read the Alice book) perspective and the named
>perspective. I just learned that.
I think it's because the order is essentially arbitrary; the ordering
is never used. No greater than or arithmetic on column indices.
>>> [Type]
>>> " TYPES are sets of things we can talk about;
>>> RELATIONS are (true) statements bout those things."
>>> -- Chris Date, Feb 2004
>>
>> This is just wrong.
[...]
>> A type is *not* a set.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system says
>"A type indicates a set of values that have the same sort of generic
>meaning or intended purpose"
There's a big difference between "indicates" and "is" here.
The absence of a comma after "values" is important as well.
But I have to withdraw what I wrote. I was thinking of set theory,
in which sets are entirely defined by what their elements are.
In practice, when we talk about sets such as the natural numbers or,
say, Dates, we're really talking about types. So if anything's wrong,
I should blame set theory, rather than Date.
>> Does the Third Manifesto use the term 'class'?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>(yes, the same megalomania here, twice) they argue that the answer to
>this question should be "domain".
Nice! I agree. (And I don't object to the term "world" here.)
>>> [Transaction]
>>> A set of database operations constituting a logical unit of work.
[...]
OK, as a most general definition this is good, but more detail
is perhaps in order.

Signature
Reinier
mAsterdam - 17 Feb 2008 19:40 GMT
[snip address]
Thank you for contributing.
I snipped most text (agreement/taken for the glossary).
[Data]
>>>> "Known facts that can be recorded and have implicit meaning."
>>>> -- Fundamentals of Database Systems, Elmasri & Navathe.
>>> Not so good: the same data can have different interpretations.
>> Only when you adhere to the idea that data may have no meaning.
>
> No.
Maybe you found a better definition or description.
If you did, please share it.
[snip Information, Key, NULL]
> I'd never heard of fatic, but you explained it well (on Apr 7, 2006).
Thank you.
[Object]
>> Coming up with an agreeable definition of 'Object' in cdt
>> will earn you real beer (in Amsterdam).
> I'll think about it.
I'll lower the bar. A visible, discussed attempt
is good enough. The seriousness has no effect on the prize ;-)
[snip Primary key, Type, Class, Transaction]
mAsterdam - 17 Feb 2008 22:50 GMT
> You don't define "value" yet.
How about this:
[Constant] See [Variable].
[Value]
"A value is unique, eternal, immutable, and is not
fixed in time or space (it has no address)."
- Darren Duncan, Language::MuldisD::Basics version 0.14.1.
http://search.cpan.org/~duncand/Language-MuldisD-0.21.0/lib/Language/MuldisD/Bas
ics.pod
[Variable]
"A variable is fixed in time and space ...¹; it holds an
appearance of a value; it is neither unique nor eternal
nor immutable in the general case.
A constant is a variable which is defined to not mutate
after initially being set."
- Darren Duncan, for source see [Value].
¹ ... says: "(it does have an address)", which is
specific to DD's purpose.