Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: c.d.theory glossary - RELATION

Re: c.d.theory glossary - RELATION

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:58:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4092779f$0$562$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>


x wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:

>>x wrote:
[snip]
> If the facts tell nothing about things in the world,
> then a relational database would be worthless (empty) :-)

:-)

>>>If yes, those  _things_  are explicitly or implicitly represented
>>>in relational model ? And by what ? Why not otherwise.
>>
>>Assuming yes about the first question:
>>'represent' would be 'explicit', imho.
>>By what? By the propositions (by means of the predicates).
>>
>>As I said: just thinking out loud.

>
>
> fact: John likes Mary.
> Which proposition represents John ?

The proposition "John likes Mary" represents John. Indirectly, but explicitly. Like so:

"John likes Mary" would be in the body of a relation. It's predicate would be (short) "<Person> likes <Person>".

A representation would be:

+----------------------------------------+
|Likes:                                  |
| The person identified by Person1 likes |
| the person identified by Person2       |
+--------------------+-------------------+
| Person1:PersonName |Person2:PersonName |
+====================+===================+
| John               | Mary              |
+--------------------|-------------------+

While we're at it:
An ER-model would have one box "Person", with a recursive m:n association 'likes/is liked by'.

Are you sure he likes her? Received on Fri Apr 30 2004 - 10:58:12 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US