Re: Attribution for modeling data with relations
From: dawn <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2 Mar 2006 20:50:40 -0800
Message-ID: <1141361440.498345.40840_at_p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
> > Is that subscript notation referred to as relational whether applied
> > to a relation or not?
> It is a notation that is particular for this paper and not something
> that is generally used or has a general name. He only calls it
> relational because it expresses the following of some kind of binary
> relationship, actually more like a foreign key relationship.
Date: 2 Mar 2006 20:50:40 -0800
Message-ID: <1141361440.498345.40840_at_p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Jan Hidders wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Jan Hidders wrote:
> >
> >> dawn wrote:
> >>
> >>> [...] when I re-read
> >>> Nelson's 1965 paper while scanning it in* I saw that he uses
> >>> "relational terminology" and the term "relational terminology"
> >>> (page 2-8), even if just giving a hint of it.
> >>
> >> He's talking about the subscript notation. It has nothing to do
> >> with representing data with relations.
> >
> > I'll buy that. The tuple looks rather like a relation, however.
>
> ?? A tuple that looks like a relation?
Sorry, like an element of a relation.
>
> > Is that subscript notation referred to as relational whether applied
> > to a relation or not?
>
> It is a notation that is particular for this paper and not something
> that is generally used or has a general name. He only calls it
> relational because it expresses the following of some kind of binary
> relationship, actually more like a foreign key relationship.
OK. Thanks. --dawn Received on Fri Mar 03 2006 - 05:50:40 CET