Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

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

From: VC <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:27:19 -0400
Message-ID: <0JydnSua98VP9VHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>

"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message news:ZmWye.138790$Kn.7314565_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> VC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So what's the difference between an object and a conceptual object ?
>>>
>>>A conceptual object is an object that is part of the universe of
>>>discourse that is under consideration.
>> That's cool, but what I was resally asking was what the difference
>> between an "object" and the "conceptual object". What is the word
>> "conceptual" doing here ?
>
> ?? You mean, apart from indicating that this particular object belongs the
> universe of discourse?

I still do not undertsand. Let's assume we define the object as an element belonging to a set. You are saying that a "conceptual object" belongs to a universe of discourse, the universe being a synonym of a set, I hope. Now, my question is really simple: do an "object" and a "conceptual object" belong to different sets ? They must, otherwise how do you differentiate one from another ? Or, the adjective "conceptual" is just an adornment to make the lowly "object" word look nicer (sound more important) ?

Thanks.

>
> -- Jan Hidders
Received on Wed Jul 06 2005 - 18:27:19 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US