christianlott

Thanks Moustafa.

ok. I like WF. The demo was pretty clear.

However - hardcoding prices of products makes it extremely difficult to maintain.

Hence, the demo is completely unrealistic.

I this what WF expects us to do?

Pablo [MSFT] wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. Here are a few comments:


Feedback taken. I know I tend to talk fast, I just get too exited about the stuff ; also, the informal nature of C9 interviews makes it worse for me (although I think it's a good thing overall). I'll try and go slower next time.

Good feedback. Our idea was to have a mix of documents (which you already found) and informal videos with different content; the docs would go through the details, and the video would show the take of the team. That said, if it didn't work we may need to work on that (including my accent )


May be we should have given more background material. The terminology we used is for the most part made of well-known industry and academia terms (there are some specifics required to describe new or specialized elements, of course).

Chen's paper from '76 introduced a "conceptual" layer and discussed "multilevel views of data". The article below from Wikipedia has a summary of the "Entity-relationship" model, the relationship beween the conceptual, logical and physical layeres, and pointers to Chen's papers and other resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-relationship_model

The Entity Data Model is an entity-relationship model and borrows terminology from it.


-pablo

Thanks Pablo. I just needed a slow down. I could understand only after I replayed what you said slowly in my head.

I didn't mean to sound like a jerk and I'm glad you didn't take it that way (though my last post may have proven otherwise).

What's bugging me though is that - including the screencast I just saw, they keep typing out these long sql sequences for a join. Couldn't you just refer to a view and shorten the code the same as refering to an entity? This all seems like 'views on clr'. Would that be a correct assumption?

I know there are limitations on what you can store using a view, but those limitations are logical. Could you explain the differences with maybe an example?

Thanks,

Christian

Charles wrote:


This is why we have Screencasts...

Yes. The screencasts were better. Thank you.

Charles wrote:

I think Pablo is planning on producing some.
C

God, I hope not.

First off, Pablo talks too fast and I can barely understand his accent - even if he speaks gramatically correct english.

Second, I agree - Charles is the best interviewer by far. I can't stand Scobel. (Not that that is even a fair comparison!)

What upset me beyond not being able to understand Pablo's overexcited hyper-speak is that the only time 'VIEWS' were mentioned it was in passing and with a 'just trust MSR'.

Looking back and having now read a paper on it, I think I understand. I just hate watching an hour long video with people rushing through concepts, the camera going in and out of focus and someone with such a thick accent speaking so fast.

I think there needs to be some balance between the 'live' aspect of these interviews and some kind of coherency and organization.

BTW, that whiteboard drawing was about the worst method of explanation I've ever come across. What was that middle box supposed to represent again? And don't you think 'conceptual' and 'logical' are the wrong words? If the UI code is called 'conceptual', how is 'logic' defined for you anyway? I forgot, this is MS-speak. You guys have your own definitions and change phraseology everytime there's a new percieved market. The distinction you made seems more like a sales gimmick than a definition for a legitimate term.

Quit the kiddie talk!

To me, a relational database diagram IS *conceptual*!

To me, all those advantages of entities that were talked about for the first 40 minutes of the video are used for VIEWS already.

After reading a paper and looking at a few diagrams I can see they are being used as objects. Maybe I'll understand by the time it comes out.

BTW, what I was searching for was along the lines of XSP:

http://xsp.xegesis.org/

I wonder if Jim Gray has ever heard of DL Childs.....