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

From: vc <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 7 Jul 2005 12:52:19 -0700
Message-ID: <1120765939.190497.222080_at_g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Jan Hidders wrote:
> vc wrote:
> > [...] To sum up, why cannot we talk about just "objects in the U.o.D" and need this "conceptual object" thingy ?
>
> We can, and we don't.
>
> -- Jan Hidders

<quote>
A conceptual object is an object that is part of the universe of discourse that is under consideration.

How do you reconcile the quote above with "we can, and we don't" ? Recall, that the whole discussion of "conceptual" started with my failed attempt to read the article you've referenced (http://www.orm.net/pdf/ER96.pdf, "Conceptual query language"). I asked for a clarification of the "conceptual object" and "semantic domain" locutions. Would you recommend substituting a blank for each occurence of "conceptual" and "semantic" in the article ? If so, is my assumption about trying to impress the potential reader was the sole purpose of using such words? Or they do have some meaning ?

Thanks.

vc Received on Thu Jul 07 2005 - 21:52:19 CEST

Original text of this message