Re: Relation name = address?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:31:35 +0300
Message-ID: <e4ua3a$d38$1_at_emma.aioe.org>
"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1148318771.795252.282560_at_38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> x wrote:
> > "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 ?
> What about them in particular do you have an issue with x?
I have an issue with the RENAME operator which I have not fully
investigated.
I wonder if some additional restrictions on it might be needed or are
already defined.
Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 08:31:35 CEST