From - Tue Feb 20 18:08:28 2001 X-UIDL: ada0c276a9331f71 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: lacall-onemodel:org-lacall@onemodel.org X-Envelope-To: lacall@onemodel.org Received: (qmail 70489 invoked by uid 800); 20 Feb 2001 14:11:07 -0000 Date: 20 Feb 2001 14:11:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20010220141107.70488.qmail@uruz.pair.com> To: lacall@onemodel.org References: <3A927AE2.4010408@onemodel.org> In-Reply-To: <3A927AE2.4010408@onemodel.org> X-Loop: general-digest-list@onemodel.org From: general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org Reply-To: Please.write.a.new.mail.instead.of.replying@FIRST.WORD.archive Content-ID: <"volume00/16"%general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org> Subject: archive retrieval: volume00/16 Precedence: bulk Content-Disposition: inline; filename="volume00/16" Content-Type: message/rfc822; directory="volume00"; name="16" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org Subject: general-digest-list Digest V00 #16 X-Loop: general-digest-list@onemodel.org X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/16 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: general-digest-list@onemodel.org Reply-To: general-list@onemodel.org ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain general-digest-list Digest Volume 00 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Re: [Fwd: Modeling Relations -- Re: [ Mark Butler ] Re: [Fwd: Modeling Relations -- Re: [ "Tom and other Packers" To: general-list@onemodel.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Modeling Relations -- Re: use cases] Message-ID: <39AE8793.B62BB405@middle.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am glad to hear some basic agreement from Lee and Tom. One thing we should do to keep our semantics correct, however, is to only use the terms "node" and "internode" in the proper sense that Tom has specified. I beleive an internode is a strict singular vector relationship between two proper "nodes" and nothing else. I have been calling a lot of other entity relationships "internodes", which is wrong. From now on, I suggest we call any arbitrary abstraction an "entity" and use the term "relationship" to refer to an entity that relates two or more other entities together. For data representation purposes, I beleive we can safely say: A "entity" is any abstraction. A "relationship" is a kind of "entity" A "node" is a kind of "entity" An "internode" is a kind of "relationship" which is a kind of "entity" The only problem with the word "entity" is that it is hard to say and to type. Sometimes the words "item" is a useful substitute. Any comments? - Mark Lee Howard wrote: > > Not that I wouldn't mind to disagree with Mark for disagreement's sake. > ;-) (I'm teasing, Mark.) And not that I really am all too anxious to > disagree with Tom. (especially after recent lambashings...) After all, it > is still his project... > > But I'm agreeing with Mark on this. I've agreed with Mark on this before > his earlier explanation. (I just needed to make sure that I *was* > understanding what he was writing... at least regarding the internode vs. > node dilemma.) > > The fundamental data design seems so much more simple to do things this > way, anyway, although I think it may appear to be more complex to those who > have viewed internodes as independent data sets from nodes for so long. > Viewing the data in this manner solves a number of conceptual problems that > I have had for so long in understanding internodes. > > (as if anyone cared what I thought anyway...) > > Lee. -- Mark Butler ( butlerm@middle.net ) Software Engineer Epic Systems (801)-451-4583 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:01:48 -0600 From: "Tom and other Packers" To: Subject: Re: [Fwd: Modeling Relations -- Re: use cases] Message-ID: <004f01c0144f$8fcca7e0$1b0fa8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark This sounds very well thought out and appropriate. I'll talk to you more about this at the "meeting" tomorrow. I'm not necessarily voting for dinner tomorrow, by the way, so ... we'll have to see what everybody else wants. tomp ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Butler To: Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: Modeling Relations -- Re: use cases] I am glad to hear some basic agreement from Lee and Tom. One thing we should do to keep our semantics correct, however, is to only use the terms "node" and "internode" in the proper sense that Tom has specified. I beleive an internode is a strict singular vector relationship between two proper "nodes" and nothing else. I have been calling a lot of other entity relationships "internodes", which is wrong. From now on, I suggest we call any arbitrary abstraction an "entity" and use the term "relationship" to refer to an entity that relates two or more other entities together. For data representation purposes, I beleive we can safely say: A "entity" is any abstraction. A "relationship" is a kind of "entity" A "node" is a kind of "entity" An "internode" is a kind of "relationship" which is a kind of "entity" The only problem with the word "entity" is that it is hard to say and to type. Sometimes the words "item" is a useful substitute. Any comments? - Mark Lee Howard wrote: > > Not that I wouldn't mind to disagree with Mark for disagreement's sake. > ;-) (I'm teasing, Mark.) And not that I really am all too anxious to > disagree with Tom. (especially after recent lambashings...) After all, it > is still his project... > > But I'm agreeing with Mark on this. I've agreed with Mark on this before > his earlier explanation. (I just needed to make sure that I *was* > understanding what he was writing... at least regarding the internode vs. > node dilemma.) > > The fundamental data design seems so much more simple to do things this > way, anyway, although I think it may appear to be more complex to those who > have viewed internodes as independent data sets from nodes for so long. > Viewing the data in this manner solves a number of conceptual problems that > I have had for so long in understanding internodes. > > (as if anyone cared what I thought anyway...) > > Lee. -- Mark Butler ( butlerm@middle.net ) Software Engineer Epic Systems (801)-451-4583 -------------------------------- End of general-digest-list Digest V00 Issue #16 ***********************************************