Re: unhappy responses

On 5 Mar 2009, at 14:22, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>  
> wrote:
[snip]
> I can see her having a question about this. For instance the top
> google hit for database keys
> http://databases.about.com/cs/administration/g/key.htm says:
>
>> Definition: A database key is a attribute utilized to sort and/or  
>> identify data in some manner. Each table has a primary key which  
>> uniquely identifies records. Foriegn keys are utilized to cross- 
>> reference data between relational tables.
>
> If the key is not functional then the sort order may not be well  
> defined.

Er... use to sort *or* identify.

Multiple key values can be used to identify in several different ways.  
For example, if one is doing entity reconciliation. We don't *have*  
tables, so keys identify *entities* not records.

Similarly, with sort. There is no notion of sorting in OWL, but there  
are many ways to handle multiple sort keys for an entities (e.g.,  
lowest wins, the entity appears in each position, etc.). These are all  
well defined. And then of course one could impose functionality.

Again, since OWL is used to model multiple databases in various states  
and to integrate them, it's important to allow these situations to be  
represented.

> I think she would have a better argument about our nomenclature being
> confusing if she could cite authoritative sources that define key
> properties as functional. Unless someone objects I will follow up with
> her along these lines off list.

I think she has agreed that it's a judgement call and our judgements  
disagree. Thus, I think she has accepted our response. I am very  
reluctant to have the group debate her on this point.

(If you want to pursue it personally...fine.)

If there's doubt whether she "agrees to disagree" then that's worth a  
(group) follow up.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:54:36 UTC