Hi Andy,
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think it is better to state propositions so that people can either agree or disagree, rather than using long, complex and "befuddling" sentences. So here are my two propositions
1. My sample model illustrates a principle.
2. We do not have an accurate model of Marc's domain.
Here is the evidence that "we" (includes Marc) do not have an accurate model of the Domain (aka Universe of Discourse) that Marc is trying to model.
Clifford said: "Your description is not very clear." (and it wasn't clear to me either)
Marc said: "As far as this intermediate table it is an agreement that is pre-determined, but the order of presidence dictates that the existence of certain pieces takes presidence over other pieces regardless of wether they exist or not."
I have the following comments on this:
1: There is an inference that the "table" and the "predetermined business rule" are the same thing. I believe that a set of valid propositions should be made first before deciding how they can be best represented in relational table form.
2: This sentence seems to be saying something like: A takes precedence over B even if B does not exist.
Which decomposes into: A takes precedence over B AND A takes precedence over something that does not exist.
Then Marc says:
What I'd like is for these constraints to be built into the model as constraints without having to build a matrix of each claimant
[claimantid], [fedagency country code], [org country code], [claimant country code], [cost of living]
1, null, af, us, 41.50
2, null, us, af, 55.00
This is not an elementary fact.
===================
So, this is my case for saying that we don't have an accurate model of Marc's domain.
I don't see how this invalidates the use of an example to illustrate a principle.
Maybe you can enlighten me.
Ken