Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:55:17 +0100
Message-ID: <5qfcr0tj6h8481rvh4ijn44lgfnjlkged8@4ax.com>

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:10:27 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:

>> If types are not variables, it is wrong to equate types and variables.
>
>OK, this is the point I really don't get. It sounds like the 1GB is
>concerned with using an OO Class to specify a Relation type.

A relation variable, not a relation type.

> Is the issue that in OO there is no new coined term to
>distinquish between a Relation specified as a type and a Relational
>variable?

No, but the complete mess in the OO terminology is the cause of many confusions.

Regards Received on Tue Dec 07 2004 - 17:55:17 CST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: The TransRelational Model: Performance Concerns"
Previous message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
In reply to: Dawn M. Wolthuis: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Next in thread: Dawn M. Wolthuis: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Reply: Dawn M. Wolthuis: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Reply: Ja Lar: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

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