Re: Attribute Value Attributes, Fuzzy Sets, & Color-coded Data

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:46:54 -0500
Message-ID: <c61odk$2hj$>

"Jan Hidders" <> wrote in message news:sLYgc.78502$
> Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> >
> > So, the proposition becomes:
> >
> > John Doe ordered a pizza on 10JAN04 and his last name was updated last
> > Martha Stewart on 12NOV02 while the date was updated last by Bob Dylan
> > 10JAN04 at 6:30PM etc
> >
> > rather than the simpler:
> > John Doe ordered pizza on 10JAN04
> >
> > Is there any database theory that does not treat the attributes of
> > values as if they were the same as attributes about the main subject?
> Yes, classical normalization theory in the relational model does. Just
> apply it to the example above and see what happens.

Are you saying that relational theory has a different way of handling attributes of attribute values than the standard way it handles any attribute value? Yes, I could normalize so that the above is a view of the proposition (and not a base table), but I'm looking for anything might make it easy, for example, to add such attributes globally to a schema. I likely didn't make my question clear enough. I would like the database to understand when I'm providing an attribute about the data attribute value compared to some other "type" of attribute.

If a database professional would then identify that every stored attribute value should be tagged with a time/date stamp, a login id for the person who last update the value, a color (for whatever reason) or any other attribute, then they inform the database management software of the new attribute for an attribute value and now that attribute is available to be stored across the board. Are there implementations of the relational model that allow for that?

Thanks for your patience with this perhaps ill-formed question. It seems to me that the relational model would treat attributes about other attribute values just like they treat any other attribute in the system, right?

--dawn Received on Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:46:54 CEST

Original text of this message