Re: FK -> non PK - bad design?
From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:42:04 GMT
Message-ID: <wIrla.168135$Zo.33480_at_sccrnsc03>
> Besides, I think the "plural table names" argument confuses sets
> with with they contain. Tables represent sets. The set is singular,
> for example it is *a* set of employees, i.e., the Employee set. The
> Employee set (sing.) is a set of Employees (pl.). So why would a
> singular name lead one to believe that the set contains just one
> entity?
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:42:04 GMT
Message-ID: <wIrla.168135$Zo.33480_at_sccrnsc03>
"Larry Coon" <larry_at_assist.org> wrote in message news:3E9469BE.48FA_at_assist.org...
>
> Besides, I think the "plural table names" argument confuses sets
> with with they contain. Tables represent sets. The set is singular,
> for example it is *a* set of employees, i.e., the Employee set. The
> Employee set (sing.) is a set of Employees (pl.). So why would a
> singular name lead one to believe that the set contains just one
> entity?
Well, don't we say "the set of integers" or just "the integers" when we're talking about Z? And if we use singular, as in "i is an integer" we're talking about a specific number, and not an infinite set of numbers.
It is interesting to note that many natural languages don't have constructs for singular vs. plural, so in those languages this issue doesn't come up. (There are also some languages with singular, dual, and plural, and you have to wonder what they would do. But I think they are all dead languages, so the issue is moot.)
Marshall Received on Fri Apr 11 2003 - 06:42:04 CEST