Re: c.d.theory lexicon overview

"Senny" <sennomo_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8xThc.1341$17.158634_at_news1.epix.net...
> Alan wrote:
>
> > Is that an abstract of your PhD. thesis?
>
> Nope. I'm done with college, and although I love theory, I rather dislike
> academia. (See Pascal's rants at http://www.dbdebunk.com for some of the
> salient reasons.)
>
> Actually, I came up with most of this stuff in my study (the local bar).
Of
> course, reading a pile of linguistics books did help a bit.
>
> Any thoughts on the content? I'm especially at a loss about how to deal
> with the numerous meanings of _function_, since it's such an entrenched
> word in several camps.

If you don't want to have one primary meaning for "function" we could have definitions of several <adjective> + "function" combinations. So, we could have entries for "mathematical function", a particular vendor's function (such as a "SQL Server user-defined function"), etc.

I'd prefer that the mathematical "function" and the mathematical "relation" were the primary definitions (again, there are variations on the mathematical definitions of these too, but very few), although it might make more sense for cdt to have a "Codd relation" be the primary, with "mathematical relation" as a secondary entry in our lexicon.

--dawn Received on Thu Apr 22 2004 - 20:26:55 CEST