Re: terminology

From: Marshall <>
Date: 18 Jun 2006 23:43:25 -0700
Message-ID: <>

paul c wrote:
> As for the other comments, all I think worth saying is that if
> 'literalists' ran the world, we'd still be drinking water by dipping our
> tongues in the nearest marsh. DB/IT progress is not to be found by
> mirroring the real world. To keep this short and to keep from being
> plonked by those here who can help me with future questions, I won't say
> what I think of the dictionary school of IT except that it's something
> like appealing to irrelevant authority.


The important thing is that two people in a conversation use the same terms the same way. The specific choices for terminology are not all that important.

However, where there are well-defined terms with little or no ambiguity, I think it only makes sense to know what they are. "Relation" and "relvar" fall in to that category. There are a whole host of terms I *didn't* bring up because they are not so clear.

Marshall Received on Mon Jun 19 2006 - 08:43:25 CEST

Original text of this message