Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:10:16 GMT
Message-ID: <chJzg.31712$pu3.422252@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

David Cressey wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> news:HN5zg.274778$iF6.97061_at_pd7tw2no...
>

>>David Cressey wrote:
>>
>>>"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1154262656.521112.118530_at_b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>This discussion has illuminated me, and I would like to share that. A
>>>>row is of course merely a proposition,
>>>
>>>
>>>A small but important (IMO) correction:
>>>
>>>A row contains a proposition.  That's not quite equivalent to saying

>
> that a
>

>>>row is a proposition.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Or a row stands for a proposition?

>
> How about "the contents of a row stands for a proposition."

Why are you so fixed on physical containment? Even in SQL, a row is not a physical container--indexes and heaps are.

>>(at least most of the time, ie., when the 'row' has at least one
>>'column'! I know that's really nonsense, I was just trying to refer to
>>Hugh Darwen's "the king of France is bald" example on dbdebunk.com.)

>
> I hear you. This reminds me of DEE and DUM. DEE and DUM are interesting,
> at least in theory.

Zero and one are interesting too -- at least in theory. Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 09:10:16 CDT