Re: Domain Definition

"Paul G. Brown" <paul_geoffrey_brown_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:57da7b56.0301091528.4576b939_at_posting.google.com...
> 71062.1056_at_compuserve.com (--CELKO--) wrote in message
news:<c0d87ec0.0301090843.44cbc41a_at_posting.google.com>...
>

[snip]

> The 'relational' data model that constitutes the framework of a SQL
DBMS
> (Hi Chris, Fabian!) doesn't care about the domains used to define
relation
> attributes. Each domain ought to have certain properties -- such as
> equivalence to support functional dependencies -- but there is no
requirement
> that they be COBOL types -- INTEGER, VARCHAR etc -- at all. Modern DBMS
> products (including the open source ones like Postgres) are perfectly
capable
> of supporting a domain like 'temperature' to encapsulate unit and
measure
> (and error, if that's the semantic you'd like).

You mean vendors are getting away from the notion of type=table??? If not, then I would have to disagree with your assertion that today's products are perfectly capable of supporting domains.

If so, then do does this domain support include distributed DBMS interaction?

Thanks Paul,

Daniel Guntermann Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 23:13:58 CET