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

From: VC <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:29:03 -0400
Message-ID: <q_idnZ2DppMGA1DfRVn-ug@comcast.com>

"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message news:2Zfze.139626$xo.7298142_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...

> vc wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>>
>> <quote>
>> A conceptual object is an object that is part of the universe of
>> discourse that is under consideration.
>>
>> -- Jan Hidders
>> </quote>
>>
>> How do you reconcile the quote above with "we can, and we don't" ?

>
> Not wearing our thinking-cap today, are we? :-) We *can* talk about just 
> "objects in the U.o.D" and *don't* need this "conceptual object" thingy.

Apparently, my first attempt to reply failed. I apologize for possible double posting.

Let's try another approach. *When* does one need "conceptual objects" and "semantic domains" as opposed to just objects and domains ? On what specific occasions ? I hope you agree, since you've excised this part of my message, that U.o.E vs. U.o.D contradistinction does not make much sense. If you do, the may question stands: what is a "conceptual object" ? You may be able to deal, in one go, with the "semantic domain" as well.

Thanks.

>
> -- Jan Hidders Received on Thu Jul 07 2005 - 16:29:03 CDT