Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]
From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:10:28 GMT
Message-ID: <UoFte.125877$PH4.7042098_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
>
>
> Yes, he can. I spent a couple of hours and created a kind of formal
> introduction (to be continued and updated):
>
> http://conceptoriented.com/papers/ComFormalIntroduction.pdf
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:10:28 GMT
Message-ID: <UoFte.125877$PH4.7042098_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
Alexandr Savinov wrote:
> vc schrieb:
>
>> Now, back to my question. Is it something that AS is talking about ? >> If not, can he offer a (semi) formal description similar to above ?
>
>
> Yes, he can. I spent a couple of hours and created a kind of formal
> introduction (to be continued and updated):
>
> http://conceptoriented.com/papers/ComFormalIntroduction.pdf
I was hoping you would provide something that is more usual for data model formalizations:
1 - The postulation of a few pairwise disjoint sets. 2 - Def. A *schema* is defined as a tuple S = < ... > such that ... 3 - Def. Given a schema S = < ... > an *instance* of S is a tuple I = <... > such that ...
Currently you mostly introduce terminology, but the real core definitions of your data model (instance & schema) seem to be missing or scattered all over the place.
- Jan Hidders