Re: Latest version of glossary
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:33:53 +0100
Message-ID: <43ff7b7d$0$11068$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
JOG wrote:
> dawn wrote:
>
>>entity: a thing of interest >> >>Note: this term is often used when doing conceptual data modeling. >>When it is used with a particular product, technique, or technology, >>such as XML, refer to the use of the term within that "namespace" using >>an adjective, such as "XML entity" to distinquish it from the more >>generic use of the term. >> >>(we could possibly add in strong and weak entity)
>
>
> I agree with Alexandr that this is currently far too general.
Please keep in mind that the focus of the glossary is /real/ misunderstandings.
> This is
> an incredibly tough term to define (I'm not even completely convinced
> that the entity/relationship split is actually a useful one, and it is
> not preferable to model everything as relationships). However if forced
> I would probably refer to however the term "entity" is defined in E-R
> modelling.
>
>
...
> Another incredibly tough term as it has so many different uses -
> multidimensional databases/OLAP for instance.
>
>
>>Note: Because a table in a SQL-DBMS can be modeled as a mathematical >>relation where the dimension is as in 1) above, and can also be
>
>
> This first line of this requires iteration imo - a table in an
> SQL-DBMS is not modelled as a mathematical relation (only information
> is modelled). Rather tables are a conventional visualization (I think
> you convinced me that representation is an incorrect word) for those
> underlying relations.
I took some from this, thank you.
Suggestions for improvement welcome.
> When one talks about 2-dimensions and arrays in respect to RM, one is
> talking about the visualization, not the underlying model. I believe
> that this could be a useful distinction, and probably the root of most
> miscommunication on the matter.
Again, suggestions for improvement welcome. Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 22:33:53 CET