Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:47:40 GMT
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:bsqv24$r4r$1_at_news.netins.net...
> I'd rather we start with Java
> than SQL for defining types since what we need seems to be pretty much there
> I wrote it from a mathematics background, adding in the fact that the set
> must be named in relational databases where it need not be in mathematics.
> I know it is not always how folks perceive domains, but all it really is is
> just a set that limits the possible values for an attribute, right?
Sure. Actually, it doesn't seem like all that useful a word to me, because we already have a word for it: "type." This word is better understood and more commonly used.
> of anyone who adds in words like "atomic" into definitions of "domain".
> Unless we (as a profession) can find a useful definition of atomic, I'd like
> to leave such useless jargon out of database discussions altogether.
Agreed. But I think atomic has a well-established meaning: "of or employing nuclear energy." No, wait, it's "indivisible." An atomic operation is one that cannot be broken down into smaller operations; it succeeds entirely or not at all. An atomic value is a value which cannot be broken up into subcomponents.
Marshall Received on Tue Dec 30 2003 - 18:47:40 CET