Re: Proposal: 6NF

Tony D wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
> > Still, the bulk of the apps I've seen
> > don't need that extended type support ...
>
> I couldn't disagree with this observation more strongly. Without a rich
> type system, we can't talk about the right things (attributes). If we
> can't talk about the right things, we can't reasonably expect to
> construct proper statements (relations). As well to make assertions
> about horse racing by discussing camels :) And to have a rich type
> system, we'd better make sure the underpinnings are at least consistent
> and preferably correct ;)
A rich type system would not be anything else than a true relational system. In a true relational system, typing is just another name for the association of a specific computing method that defines how restrictions of values are operated for domain derivability and how operators apply on new values derived. The only use of distinction made between relations and typing is because they are both on different abstract levels, typing being at a computing lower level.

Keep in mind that an attribute is just an un-ary relation. Is rich type system better? certainly. But I doubt it would be built any time soon while preserving logical independence. Even Tarin's transformation, while being an interesting advance does really succeed in such perspective. Received on Tue Oct 17 2006 - 21:25:36 CEST