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: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:21:48 GMT
Message-ID: <wZBye.138058$BL5.7352358_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>


Jon Heggland wrote:

> In article <qLgye.137278$Nn7.7012386_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>, 
> jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be says...
> 

>>>A value has one or more representations.
>>
>>Yes, but note that that was true in *my* definition of value. In ORM
>>terminology the notions of value and representation are usually
>>considered synonymous.
>>
>>>A lexical object is a representation, not a value.
>>
>>Again, under my definition of value. In ORM's vocabulary this would not
>>be true.
>>
>>>A lexical object type is a set of values.
>>
>>Yep, although it would probably have been less confusing if I would have
>>said it was a set of representations. My apologies for that.
> 
> Well, now I am more confused than ever. For some reason you did not 
> comment on my last statement: 
> 

>>>Thus, a lexical object is not a member of a lexical object type.
>  
> ---which I presented as the contradictory (or at the very least counter-
> intuitive) conclusion of the other statements, and now you say that a 
> LOT is a set of representations after all? I give up.

I didn't comment on the conclusion because I already had said that some of the premises, when interpreted as ORM terminology, are not correct hence the conclusion, in ORM terminology, does not follow.

  • Jan Hidders
Received on Tue Jul 05 2005 - 22:21:48 CEST

Original text of this message