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: The stupidest design I ever saw

Re: The stupidest design I ever saw

From: x <x_at_not-exists.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:38:59 +0300
Message-ID: <e1j3d0$96p$1@emma.aioe.org>

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1144790341.213479.279810_at_t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > What is wrong with deleting the is-a(doctor,human) from the is-a
relation
> > and adding the is-a(alien,doctor) ?
>
> I didn't understand your suggestion completely. Could you post the
> resulting hierarchy after adding alien-doctor bill. Below is the
> original class hierarchy, prior to encountering alien-doctor bill.
>
> human
> __engineer
> ____bob
> __doctor
> ____sue
>

I did not read the cylindrical thing.
I was talking about relations in general. Think of "is-a" as an ordinary binary relation.

> > > ... there is an indirect/derivable, but no direct, relationship
between classes human and doctor.
>
> > Why is is-a relation an indirect relation?
>
> I did not assert is-a relation is indirect. I asserted that there is an
> indirect/derivable, but not direct, relationship between classes human
> and doctor.

That word again: "relationship" :-)
It seems we never manage to get rid of it. :-) The direct/indirect thing make no sense. Received on Wed Apr 12 2006 - 09:38:59 CDT

Original text of this message

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