Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

From: Marshall Spight <>
Date: 2 Jul 2005 08:59:33 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Jan Hidders wrote:
> vc wrote:
> >>No. In ORM NOLOTs are abstract. It is more correct to say that the RM is
> >>basically ORM restricted to LOTs. A very grave and crippling restriction
> >>indeed.
> >
> > What does NOLOT being 'abstract' mean ?
> That there is no value representation associated with non-lexical objects.

I'm still wildly unclear as to what this all means, but I got a hint from the above line.

Is the word "abstract" here being used in the same sense that is in Java? Meaning roughly: uninstantiable with parts of the definition to be filled in at a later time?

Marshall Received on Sat Jul 02 2005 - 17:59:33 CEST

Original text of this message