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_at_pd7urf2no>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:34:11 GMT
Message-ID: <TOgrh.672743$1T2.49504_at_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 Wed Jan 17 2007 - 04:34:11 CET