Re: RA with MV attributes

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:34:11 GMT
Message-ID: <TOgrh.672743$1T2.49504@pd7urf2no>

David wrote:

> ...
> Why can't we say that *by definition* the set of attributes of a
> relation is part of its state not its type?
> ...

We can say anything we want "by definition", the question is where does saying it get us? What conclusions does it lead to and so forth. I like your suggestions because they seem to have something behind them, but don't ask me what, exactly. I wish you would distinguish whether you are talking about physical implementations or user concepts.

p Received on Tue Jan 16 2007 - 21:34:11 CST