Re: The Practical Benefits of the Relational Model

From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra <lgcdutra_at_terra.com.br>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:39:26 +0200
Message-ID: <apbhie$3qh1$3_at_ID-148886.news.dfncis.de>

Paul Vernon wrote:

> "Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra"  wrote in message
> news:aop8p1$ojl84$1_at_ID-148886.news.dfncis.de...
> 

>> Remember the article is old, therefore they used SQL notation. But
>> I agree that sensible relvar attribute names are a big part of the
>> solution for the meaning problem, *for the user*. But the focus of
>> the article is on the meaning *for the system*.
>>
>> BTW, the system knows nothing about the user-intended meaning of
>> LOVER, LOVEE, HATER, HATEE. Probably the article should be revised
>> to make all that clearer.

> 
> My point was that Chris & Daivd suggest that they are trying to
> insert a tuple into the database (rather than a tuple into a relvar
> of the database).

	I don't see it there.  It is not a formal document, but even so I fail 

to see how could one construct it as wanting to insert a tuple "into the database rather than into a relvar", meaningless as the phrase seems to me…

        In fact, the relvars are called loves and hates. It is just the attributes that went unnamed, and I think for a good reason: to make it clear that, *for the system*, the meaning of names in any given natural language is meaningless.

        I think this invalidates the rest of your post, sorry…

-- 
Leandro

Received on Fri Oct 25 2002 - 15:39:26 CEST