Re: c.d.theory glossary (repost)

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 07:16:22 -0500
Message-ID: <c82db4$6he$>

"Gene Wirchenko" <> wrote in message
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <> wrote:
> [snip]
> >That one was my contribution (as with function and domain, IIRC) and is
> >mathematical definition since there are many on this list who like
> >(I among them, at times). Do you have another you would like to add for
> >list of valid defs of "relation"?
> No, and that is the point. If I did, I would give it, but since
> I am unsure enough, I would like to learn a good definition.

Then I'd suggest the one there is accurate and would be the best one to learn first. Others might add more into that, but I think that is the definition of a relation as Codd saw it.

> I have the same problem with the The
> statements may be quite logical (or be total nonsense), but I can not
> operate at that level. Until it gets simplified, I will not be able
> to.

I'll think about that. We would surely want to keep the set theory in the definitions, but perhaps if we don't assign anything to a letter that would help? I believe the primary goal with the glossary was to get enough precision to avoid confusion with terminology. There are some good resources for education related to database terminology (others might be able to jump in here). Best --dawn Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 14:16:22 CEST

Original text of this message