Re: Can relvars be dissymetrically decomposed? (vadim and x insight demanded on that subject)

Tony D wrote:
> <health warning>
> OK, this thread has been sitting here for a few days with not much
> action, and gently intriguing me. Nobody else who really knows about
> this stuff, so at risk of betraying cluelesseness about some of this
> stuff, I'd like to kick some discussion off. I may misinterpret some
> terms, so if I do and go off on a tangent be gentle. Ok ?
> </health warning>
> ...

as one who often takes things too far, eg., farther than i think Codd intended, i would defend that approach even if it means prying open doors that he didn't completely close, like this one, making domains out of relations and my pet, rva's which if i try to understand Codd's information principle in a strict way might reasonably be said to be verboten even though there are at least a couple of big names such as Darwen and Date who state that certain rva's are valid in rt. the reason i think doing this is valid is that from a theory point of view i think some effort deserves to be made when describing a theory to determine its boundaries, eg., where does rt theory end and domain or type theory begin, not to mention whether 'percolation' is possible if a domain-defining relvar changes, but what's been written so far doesn't have enough meat for me, like examples, plus it uses words like ensemblist that are way over my head and sound like they admit potentially a lot of fuzziness. i think Cimode could try to qualify or characterize what he has said or give some examples that the rest of us could take pot shots at.

p Received on Fri Jul 14 2006 - 01:16:47 CEST