Re: Relation name = address?

From: x <x_at_not-exists.org>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:53:37 +0300
Message-ID: <e4s52m$348$1@emma.aioe.org>

"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:1147973864.064854.315380_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is a relation's 'name' in fact a pointer? Relation names obviously
> don't come under the remit of the information principle, yet they are
> essential to database manipulation and querying. Are they hence an
> acceptable/necessary exception?

Following the remark that "the law is made from exceptions" and the critique of Date & Darwen, you should adopt the "no exceptions" policy.

> In TTM's cogent discussion of OID's Date & Darwin talk about "a
> database relvar might reasonably have an attribute whose values are
> (say) ... 'database relvar names'". This strikes as possibly generating
> a form of addressing/dereferencing procedure. Jim.

Forget the relation "names". What about the attribute names ? Received on Mon May 22 2006 - 05:53:37 CDT