Re: Columns without names

From: dawn <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com>
Date: 16 Sep 2006 08:44:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1158421499.274645.83490_at_h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>


JOG wrote:
> Faced with a data collection something like:
> Tom is aged 20, Dick is aged 30 and Harry is aged 40
>
> I find it apt to view a relation predicate for them as:
> "There is a people_relationship where name is X and age is Y"
> (Initially this was to stop any urge to think in terms of entities as
> opposed to assertions, and even though this is now unnecessary the
> process has stuck)
>
> However it struck me that this process may be reversed. Not very
> interesting, until I started considering domain-defining statements
> such as:
>
> "There is a number, 7." or "There is a letter, b."
>
> These are potentially different statements to those such as "There is a
> person, Sally" because the latter is stating "There is a person where
> name:Sally". The values held in the former assertions have no
> discernable attribute name - rather than a tuple such as {
> (name:Sally), (age:28)} I just have { (7) } or { (b) }.
>
> So I would like to offer for discussion the concept of whether it is
> possible to have a relation with a single column /but no column name/.
> Granted it is kooky, but is there anything theoretically against this
> principle, and if not, could it be of value?

Since we define what a "database relation" is, we could define it to permit a column with an empty string as the name, although it could surely be argued that is not "no name" but a name that is the empty string. If the rules of the game include that columns must be uniquely named within a relation, then only one column per relation would be permitted to use the empty string.

Then, of course, you need a tool that implements relations in a way that permits this. Some of the tools I use do not require that a column have a name, but then you refer to it by positioning. That is typically considered a no-no in database relational theory (although not in mathematical relations), but one could certainly define a relation that way too, as these tools do. You can then have any number of attributes with no column name.

Cheers! --dawn Received on Sat Sep 16 2006 - 17:44:59 CEST

Original text of this message