Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?
From: Ja Lar <ingen_at_mail.her>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:33:48 +0100
Message-ID: <41b73b05$0$275$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:33:48 +0100
Message-ID: <41b73b05$0$275$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk>
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> ...
>>> Databases, databases.
>>
>>I am not exactly sure how to interpret this reply. Are you suggesting a
>>unity between a scalar type system provided at a lower level (e.g. machine
>>level or OS level) and the logical RM as managed and presented by
>>software,
>>particularly the DBMS?
>
> No, I was speaking loosely. "To have" is a very flexible verb. What I
> said was intentionally vague, but not incorrect.
What, then, was then intention?
Nothing wrong about "speaking loosely", but why intentionally?
Received on Wed Dec 08 2004 - 18:33:48 CET