Re: Database design

"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:

>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.

So it would be phrased a set of tuples, not entities. And I still stand to be corrected it seems. I thought the relation was thought to be essentially an unordered set or list of tuples, and nothing more.

>< 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.

Implicit?

Klaus,13,$100,467-6898
Walsh,1,$300,480-1334

Owe these sums to . . . who? Shouldn't there be some link? It would seem fairly explicit, to me.

>> 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?

Well, that, of course. And how is "that suitable for representing a nested markup language"? Received on Tue Feb 21 2006 - 02:21:08 CET