Re: cdt glossary - TABLE

mAsterdam wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > David Cressey wrote:
> >>mAsterdam wrote:
> >>
> >>>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

>

I would propose that when I proofread a response (too rare for me), I don't forget what I'm responding to and remove the relevant point. Oops -- I deleted what I had planned to keep and kept what I intended to delete. Yes, the current heading does narrow it down. I initially wrote that this should be a second definition under the term "table" with the first being a broader def for table.

> "SQL Table" would suggest an ANSI definition (so 'header' and 'body' are
> out), "Relational Table" - I don't think many people
> are of the opinion that such a beats exists - here is a nice challenge:
> describe "Relational Table" in such a way that most people here would agree.

It so happens that I have such a definition, but it is quite long and (the margin of) this posting is too small to include it ;-)

>


> > 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

I'll give that a first pass. I'm not defining a Row or Column here, but using those terms as English words that should be easy to understand within this context.

Table The rectangular representation of a two-dimensional matrix m where an element m[i,j] is the value in row i and column j of the table. This element is also know as the value of a "cell" of the table.

> >>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

>

Apologies. --dawn

> I'll just wait a few more weeks - maybe there will be other
> suggestions/opinions on this.
Received on Mon Jul 18 2005 - 14:33:52 CEST