Re: Fraud Number 3: U-Gene
Date: 17 Jun 2006 23:57:45 -0700
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > This ignorant trully believes that relations = relvalues and asks
> > whether these values have different types thanks to the previous
> > assumption if the relation have different schemas??
> Now, I did read this thread, and I really like to sort this out. Can
> you describe, without any bluster or invective, what is meant to you by
> the terms "relvar", "relation" and "relvalue" ? You said that "I am
> more a follower of the FP, McGoveran approach who advocate a tighter
> commitment to terminilogy (sic) ..." (16th June, 2:27pm). Since you
> then went on to say that a relation is both the variable and a value (I
> think : what you said was "A relation is BOTH a relvar which represent
> the abstract structure of the relvar and the relvalues which represents
> its matter at a specific point in time.") I'd like an explicit
> description of your view of these three terms, because, like others on
> this thread I've so far taken the CJ Date line on this (even if it can
> lead to overly structural thinking about relations). If it's in one of
> Fabian Pascal's papers, by all means note which one and I'll spend the
> $10 to read it.
Whith the best motivation on my part, I can not give you online education (my time is as limited as yours)... Therefore I believe you should read first so that we can discuss...As you request, here are pointers...
If you want to understand better the true nature of RM, I suggest you purchase ALL papers too as well as Practical Issues in Data Management...
> In addition to that, I think U-gene isn't a native English speaker
> either (I think he's Russian ?), so given that a non-native speaker is
> arguing with another non-native speaker, the potential for confusion
True but declaring that relation = relvalue does not represent a sufficient level of complexity to justify that cultural barrier would be an excuse... Received on Sun Jun 18 2006 - 08:57:45 CEST