Re: Distributed foreign keys (was Re: Category Types)

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: 25 Jun 2003 08:41:21 -0700
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0306250741.1a8bb467@posting.google.com>

"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<bd9khq$rgg$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...

> P.S. does anyone share my dislike of the term 'Foreign Key'? to me it's a
> misnomer

Me too.

Do you have an alternative term?

BTW here is my crazy idea of the day :-)

There is not doubt that FKs are only a shorthand for an integrity constraint.

IMO candidate keys or keys are also a shorthand and they should not be obligatory.

All relvars have an implicit "key" which is formed by all the relation attributes. Therefore a key with all the relation attributes is redundant.

The other keys are only a shorthand for an integrity constraint.

E.g.

var a real relation { a integer, b integer } key {a};

is equivalent to:

var a real relation { a integer, b integer }; constraint count(a) = count(a{a});

Alfredo Received on Wed Jun 25 2003 - 10:41:21 CDT