[AccessD] 2 quick questions

I've pretty much stayed out of this, but I agree with Drew.  And
Arthur, I have read Codd and Date back in the days when they were
writing.  Their theories were ideals and we don't live in an ideal
world, nor did they at the time.  If we become fanatical about
anything, we stop seeing the inherent possibilities.

Charlotte Foust

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Drew Wutka <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote:
> I think I am going to throw my hat into the ring here.
>
> First, Arthur, if you are going to argue Codd's relational theories as
> being 'law', instead of THEORY, then shouldn't you be arguing that we
> should be using Dataphor, instead of discussing how we are using systems
> not conforming to his theory, in ways that also don't conform to his
> theories?
>
> Secondly, the idea of intelligent keys crosses one VERY important line.
> Computers do not THINK like humans.  The line being crossed is trying to
> make a computer store and retrieve data the way a human thinks it should
> be stored and retrieved.
>
> Let's take your spark plug example.
>
> Batch - Lot - Item
>
> What's the difference between 01-001-0001 and 0001-0001-0001.  To a
> human, both of those are the same, it's still batch 1, lot 1, and item
> 1.  To a computer, they are two completely separate values.  Granted,
> you can make logic, to 'format' your intelligent key 'properly', but
> doesn't it make more sense to have logic to PRESENT an 'intelligent' key
> to the user, instead of using that 'intelligent key' in the system
> itself?  The reason there is a line between how a computer works, and
> how a human works, is because both groups 'think' differently.  So
> calling a string of characters an 'intelligent key' for a computer is
> just as absurd as expecting a human to respond to their name display in
> binary (from Unicode characters).
>
> Drew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:15 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] 2 quick questions
>
> I refuse to participate in this conversation. Apparently, few if any of
> you
> (I reserve one exception) have never read Codd or Date etc. Yes, it is
> convenient to use an AutoNumber (or in SQL parlance Identity, or in
> Oracle
> parlance Sequence) to uniquely identify rows within a relation. Of
> course it
> is, and that's why most of us use it, but is it correct? Actually, I
> think
> not, atlthough sometimes it shall suffice: given the case of thousands
> of
> eggs hatched by hundreds of chickens daily, it may not make sense to
> give
> them Intelligent Keys, but given another case such as serial-numbered
> automobile parts, then non-autonumbered PKs make serious sense.
>
> I am not on one side or the other of this discussion. Rather, I am on
> both
> sides, and can see the sense in both sides of this discussion. When we
> are
> discussing eggs, autonumber may seem correct; when discussing fuel
> injectors, then serial numbers and batch numbers are important, and
> hence
> PKs should identify these objects intelligently, not autonumerically.
>
> A.
>
> The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain II-VI Proprietary and/or II-VI Business
> Sensitive material. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
> immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.
> You are notified that any review, retransmission, copying, disclosure, dissemination,
> or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons
> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>
>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>