Re: database design method

From: Leandro Guimar„es Faria Corsetti Dutra <>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:17:04 +0100
Message-ID: <apm591$2p4d1$>

Jan Hidders wrote:

> Leandro Guimar„es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:

>> Jan.Hidders wrote:
>>> Sure it has. It can use the same language that you can use for
>>> the relational model: 1st order logic.
>> Now I want to see it.  References, please.  You may want to be 
>> informed of articles against your view in,
>> for instance.

> Dbdebunk is not the gospel.

        No, but it is a nice reference site and eye-opener.

> The fact that you can use FOL to describe
> constraints in the ER model is so plainly obvious to people who know
> about logic and ER models that no serious researcher would write an
> article about that.

        What about Fabian Pascal as "serious"? What about as an article? Or take Date and

> If you think there is an inherent problem there then I suggest you
> share it with us and I will be happy to explain why it isn't a
> problem. :-)

        OK. How do you express non-RI constraints? How one does express each domain, attribute, relation and database integrity constraints? Or in a different taxiology, take transition constraints, how would ERDs represent them? I'm not saying you mightn't have a partial answer, but I very much doubt you could give (or point to) a complete answer.

> But what makes you think you need set theory to specify constraints?

        Nothing. But you need set theory to come up with the idea of relations in the first place, and all its attendant operations, and to have what to create constraints on.

/ \ Leandro Guimar„es Faria Corsetti Dutra        +41 (21) 216 15 93
\ /        fax +41 (21) 216 19 04
  X      Orange Communications CH
/ \ Campanha fita ASCII, contra correio HTML      +41 (21) 644 23 01
Received on Tue Oct 29 2002 - 15:17:04 CET

Original text of this message