Re: XQuery question
Date: 29 May 2003 08:31:34 -0700
Message-ID: <4b45d3ad.0305290731.54721363_at_posting.google.com>
> Based on your reply I think I misunderstood your original question.
> In the relational model we also would say that a car has a
> relationship with color. But this is informal.
If in rdm, a relation means a construct consisting of a header and a body, where the body is a set of tuples whose atttributes are defined by the header, and in English the suffix -ship means condition or character of the main word (ie friendship, statesmanship, companionship) then is it logical that relationship describe the connection between car and its color where no there is no intermediate table? Assuming relation is similar to table, would it make sense to say TableA has a tableship with TableB?
> The way this relationship is formally captured in a relational model varies.
> In the most general case, a Many to Many relationship...
How can a many-to-many relationship be the most general case if it does not include the type of relationship between car and its color? Or by most "general case" did you mean most frequent case but not all encompassing? CJ Date seems to disagree with your assertion on pg 354 in his 6th Ed of "Intro to Database Systems". Received on Thu May 29 2003 - 17:31:34 CEST