Re: c.d.theory glossary - RELATION
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:12:09 +0200
Message-ID: <40925ec4$0$574$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> It was not my choice.
> As I said, I found that on a web page about ER modeling.
>
> Do you also think REPRESENTED is too strong in the context of
> relational model (not in the context of ER modeling) ?
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:12:09 +0200
Message-ID: <40925ec4$0$574$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
x wrote:
> Laconic2 wrote:
>>I would have said that "An entity is DESCRIBED BY a set of attributes." >> >>I think REPRESENTED is too strong.
>
> It was not my choice.
> As I said, I found that on a web page about ER modeling.
>
> Do you also think REPRESENTED is too strong in the context of
> relational model (not in the context of ER modeling) ?
This is where a difference come in:
In ER-modelling the parts of the model are
abstractions of (real or fantasized) world _things_
and associatons between them, vs.
In short
the relation values in a relational model represent _facts_
(or beliefs) about a (real or fantasized) world.
ER.REPRESENT yes, *things*.
Just 2 Ec in trying to make sense of this mess. Received on Fri Apr 30 2004 - 16:12:09 CEST