Re: Database design

Mark Johnson wrote:
> "x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote:
>
> >"Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
> >news:3--dnYnbkrrCfmTenZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d_at_pipex.net...
> >> "x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote in message news:dtcjfn$f87$1_at_nntp.aioe.org...
>
> >Well, the slippery part is not that amusing after a while.
>
> >> I am more inclined to read it as just the usual witless gaff of noticing
> >> that the bounding box of a printed representation of a table has length
> >> width and leaping to the conclusion that a table is therefore
> >> two-dimensional; planar: flat.
>
> Then I certainly stand to be corrected. I thought the relation was
> thought to be essentially an unordered set or list of entities, and
> nothing more.

A tuple does not equate to an entity, in fact far from it.

< It exists by itself without any connection to what
> otherwise is known to be related information, until some links are
> added.

This paragraph reads ambiguously. The links allowing relations to be joined are implicit - but links nonetheless.

> And the question was how is that suitable for representing a
> nested markup language?
>
> >In other thread Mark complained about the slippery aspect of RM if I recall
> >it correctly.
>
> What "slippery aspect of RM" do you "recall", exactly?
Received on Tue Feb 21 2006 - 02:09:21 CET