Re: A Logical Model for Lists as Relations

"x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote in message news:e3v9uo$30q$1_at_emma.aioe.org...
>
> "David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:iQF8g.6198$re6.4713_at_trndny04...
> >
> > "Jay Dee" <ais01479_at_aeneas.net> wrote in message
> > news:Tjx8g.34028$P2.3888_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > > > If one has a numeric index that differs for each tuple, one never
has
> > > > duplication. If one has duplication, one wonders how to refer to the
> > > > duplicates. As Codd observed long ago, once one has said a thing is
> > > > true, what does saying it again achieve?
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree. If one were, for example, compiling a list of what
> > > folks were going to bring to the picnic, it might be nice to know
> > > that potato salad had been recorded many more times than fried
> > > chicken...
>
>
> > That's counting, not asserting. Asserting something twice is no more
> > consequential than asserting it once.
>
> The assertion depend on when, where, who, ... made it. :-)
>
>

As data in databases is generally understood, the database itself is making an assertion, once a transaction has been committed and accepted that makes that assertion. Of course, an application could attach to every assertion an indication of the author of the assertion. In which case, that same author, asserting something more than once is no more consequential than that author asserting it once. Received on Thu May 11 2006 - 15:04:45 CEST