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: Database design, Keys and some other things

Re: Database design, Keys and some other things

From: x <x_at_not-exists.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:36:48 +0300
Message-ID: <dhj0vn$pj7$1@domitilla.aioe.org>

"x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote in message
news:dhiu7k$kjm$1_at_domitilla.aioe.org...
>
> "JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1128029620.610189.274300_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > Proposition:
> > I am putting forward for discussion that Codd's Information Principle
> > (based on an Liebniz/essentialist viewpoint that an entity is defined
> > by its attributes, and is nothing more and nothing less than the
> > aggregate of them, [Celko - D&DB]) is not a complete model of the
> > nature of information. Rather I am proposing that there is no single
> > attribute of an entity that can be gauranteed to act as a permenant
> > immutable reference for it (nominalism - there are no universals), and
> > so an external one to represent our concept of an entity be provided.

> The usual answer to this is: there must be some way to discriminate among
> any two entities, otherwise how do you know there are two of them.

And if you care which is which, you'll find a way to tell. Received on Fri Sep 30 2005 - 04:36:48 CDT

Original text of this message

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