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

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 - 10:59:33 CDT