Re: It's pizza-time again (was: c.d.theory glossary - RELATION)

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40937db9$0$64453$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...

> This was just an introduction to expand on my uneasy feeling
> towards equating 'thing' and 'fact'.
>
> In that context I also used a distinction:
>
> _thing_ :
> pizza, topping, table, clock, customer, onion, order, order-item.
> (now I am not so sure about the last two).
>
> _fact_ :
> "It's 4 p.m", "We are out of onions",
> "the customer at table 12 ordered 2 neapolitan icecreams".

From these lists I would infer:
_thing_ = "material" noun.
 _fact_ = occured event, occurence

Sounds like the distinction between TO BE and TO OCCUR

> Am I the only one to use this distinction?

No. You are not alone. :-)

> Should I avoid it because it is flawed?
> Do we need it discussing database?

Should we avoid it because we don't know ? In First Order Logic there is a clear distinction between predicates and objects/functions.

Another question:
When discussing databases,
do we need the concept of "logical consequence" ?

The "logical consequence" of a set of clauses is defined taking into account ALL models that satisfies the clauses. When discussing databases, having more than ONE model would result in an ambiguous database.

> Please help, I'm stuck!

HELP ! Somebody HELP US!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=