Re: cdt glossary - TABLE (was: Base Normal Form)

David Cressey wrote:
> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> news:42cffb48$0$2663$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
>
> > The current (0.0.4) glossary entry,
> >
> > > [Table/Row/Column] (SQL-DBMS)
> > > Table: A collection of columns (the table header) and rows (the body).
> > > Row: A collection of values, conforming to the table header columns.
> > >
> > > One table may contain data about one entity,
> > > about several entities, about one or several
> > > relationships or any combination.
> > > A column can be seen as the attribute of the
> > > entity/one of the entities/relationships
> > > about which the table is concerned.
> >
> > , says nothing about the rows being ordered or not.
> > Should it?
>
> The above is correct, in my opinion.

I guess it depends on what profession we are in. If we are in a professional narrowly defined as relational database theory, then I'm OK with definitions of this nature. If we want to play in the profession of software development, then it would be more helpful if we qualify our terms when using them more specifically like this. I would say that this definition is about tables defined to rdbms tools or tables related to relational databases. Instead, this would be much better definition for "SQL Table" or "Relational Table", I would think.

The software development industry certainly uses the term table to refer to a number of representations of data that do not align with the above definition. There are some characteristics of all (at least most) uses of the term, however. I would think we would want the term "table" to be defined to include implementations of tables in a variety of languages and tools to avoid miscommunication.

Off the top of my head (rather than researching it right now), most uses of the word table would have the reader visualizing a two-dimensional matrix of values. Some would include a header for such values while others would have a separate object that is a table header.

> In particular, the word "collection" is, in this context, more useful than
> either "list" or "array".
>
> The question of "ordered" goes beyond the definition, IMO, even though
> it's an interesting one.

Agreed. Cheers! --dawn Received on Mon Jul 18 2005 - 07:10:27 CEST