[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@geotempo.com>
- 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@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Rick JELLIFFE [mailto:ricko@geotempo.com]
"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.
|
