Re: c.d.theory glossary - proposed preamble
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:16:10 -0500
Message-ID: <c6cm6f$eep$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Senny" <sennomo_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmiic.1409$17.168741_at_news1.epix.net...
> Wat??? Ik begrijp niet. Ik ken niet Lakatos, von Bertalanffy, Barthes,
> en Canetti. I wonder if I would understand your post better in Dutch.
Nee. Ik denk 't niet.
(I don't know if that is correct Dutch-- I'm third generation)
I think its just a mood and we can help by jumpstarting the vocabulary effort again. It shouldn't be too hard to get a primary definition for relation, for example, even if we have to have some secondary versions too. I just re-read an early Codd paper and he really does start with a pretty standard mathematical definition of a relation. It gets expanded/altered/corrupted over time to get to where it seems to be today. So, if we start with what a typical relational theory definition would be and then have "mathematical relation" as a standard mathematical def, we might get on a roll. Given I'm not exactly a relational theorist, I'll yield the floor to someone with more of a clue.
Maybe start a separate thread for each word we define, with subject "Glossary - Relation" for example -- just a thought.
cheers! --dawn Received on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 05:16:10 CEST