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: Use of the term "hierarchy" (and table/class)

Re: Use of the term "hierarchy" (and table/class)

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:06:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4310ff78$0$11074$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>


Alexandr Savinov wrote:
> Marshall Spight schrieb:

>> Alexandr Savinov wrote:
>>> But actually what are
>>> tables if not a physical container for records?
>>
>> A logical container for records.

>
> Then I see the following ways to resolve the conflict:
> 1. it is a conflict of terms only (the problem is solved)

That is overly optimistic.
Let's assume it is (a conflict of terms only). Adoption of 'foreign' terms by either you or by many other people is a non-trivial excercise, even - and this has not even yet been established - if there is a one to one mapping of terms possible.

> 2. we need to define more precisely what we mean by physical container
> and logical container (my definition see below) with an oppurtunity to
> go to item 1 above or to some other more interesting conclusions.

There are a lot of levels/layers when dealing with data, for instance in datacommunications and data storage technology. When discussing a border between such levels, the upper level is often called 'logical', the lower level 'physical' - but these are just absolute conveniences for relative concepts. More precise would be: closer to the realm of users, upwards and closer to the ordered sand, magnetized particles and screws, downwards. Describing and naming those layers in datacommunication has taken e.g. IBM(SNA), ISO(OSI) and IETF(IP-stack) many years of concerted efforts. Received on Sat Aug 27 2005 - 19:06:31 CDT

Original text of this message

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