[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RELAX to ISO

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:48:21 -0500

Ok.  Sure and you are right.  OTOH, that 
seems to link back to the discussion 
Martin and Steve and I are having:  are 
business "rules" just nodes in a separate 
grove?  I guess it can be done, but I 
doubt OOPMen will give up APIs anytime soon.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

From: Rick JELLIFFE [mailto:ricko@g...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> Business rules as an artificial category.  Why artificial?

Because it sometimes seems that people say "business rules" when they
mean "every constraint that cannot be represented by my schema
language".  So a business rule is a constraint (or function) that the
database designer can leave to the applications programmers while (s)he
concentrates on DDL or whatever.

So "business rules", used like that, are an artifact of the limits of
schema languages which either cannot express dynamic constraints between
data or which are only useful for defining data rather than usages of
data in various circumstances.

But, of course, I am aware that "busines rules" are also used in another
way, to mean functions rather than constraints per se.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RELAX to ISO
• Next by Date: Re: Mapping XHTML to XLink via Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: RE: RELAX to ISO
• Next by thread: Re: RELAX to ISO
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread