Re: relations aren't types?

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:e4330f45.0401031500.38e6647c_at_posting.google.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:<U5-dnfKDdMPabWuiRVn-tw_at_golden.net>...
>
> > > No, the contrary. I mean they have visible "structure", but not
> > > possible representations.
> > >
> > > What are the possible representations of a relation value?
> >
> > One possible representation has a header and a body where THE_header is
a
> > set of attribute name/data type pairs and where THE_body is a set of
sets of
> > attribute name/data type/value triplets.
>
> No, it is not a possible representation of a relation, it is a
> description of the structure of a relation.

In what way do those THE_ operators fail to represent a relation? Received on Sun Jan 04 2004 - 05:12:00 CET