Re: Plural or singular table names
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:17:18 +0100
Message-ID: <bj4f8q$l0i$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:my65b.384$652.40534048_at_mantis.golden.net...
> "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
> news:bj2mh2$fri$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> > BTW Could you show me how a constraint alters the meaning of a set
> > of tuples? For me, a constraint alters the allowable set of meanings, it
> > does not alter the meaning of a particular set of tuples.
>
> Constraints identify the meaningful set of possible statements.
>
> Consider the following relation:
Relation variable or relation value?
> F:
>
> X Y Z
> = = =
> 2 2 4
>
> Do the following constraints give F different meanings?
>
> Z = X + Y
> Z = X * Y
> Z = X ^ Y
If F is a variable then yes, if it is a value then no.
Values do not have constraints, so constraints cannot alter their meaning.
But if F was a variable, it would (in my view of the relational model) be the database variable (as that is the only variable I say we need in the model). If F is a database variable, then the value of F is different for each of the different constraints because it would contain different catalog constraint tuples.
Either way it is values that have meaning, nothing else.
it would be say this tuple in the catalog
{ OperandA 2, OperandB 2, PLUS_Equals 4 }
that tells me that "OperandA 2, OperandB 2, PLUS_Equals 4" which (to me) is an non
grammatical approximation of "2 + 2 = 4"
!
Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services
Received on Wed Sep 03 2003 - 12:17:18 CEST