Tony D wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
> > But R1 isn't a type - it *has* a type, but it isn't a type itself. The
> > *type* of R1 would constitute a new domain, as that would describe
> > which relation values could be considered to be of that type.
> >
>
> To go back to the much earlier example in the thread, R1 isn't a type,
> but DoR1 would be.
No. DoR1 is not a type. DoR1 is a domain from which N types could be
derived and defined. Sorry for all confusions I may have induced.
Received on Tue Jul 18 2006 - 05:12:22 CDT
