Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Objects and Relations

Re: Objects and Relations

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 14 Feb 2007 11:34:48 -0800
Message-ID: <1171481688.295902.275030@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>


On 14 fév, 17:41, "Roy Hann" <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171470284.247642.69150_at_s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In order words surrogate keys are *practical*?
>
> If you like, although in colloquial English that could be misinterpreted to
> mean "recommended as best practice". I might prefer to say only that they
> can be convenient but have no theoretical requirement to be used.
>
> Roy

Indeed. I personally believe that they are *necessarily* used because there is no such thing as a natural key in nature. In my perspective, a natural key is nothing but a socially accepted surrogate key. In other terms, it seems that surrogate keys are a part of a social selection process which leads to the creation of a natural key in case of collective consensual acceptance. The process succeeds by the creation of a natural key. Or the process fails and in such case, we either have synonyms (meaning several separate sub social consensus reached and therefore the same natural key produced identifying different things) or uncontrolled multiplication of surrogate keys (non establishment of natural key). Such process may explain the individual unease feeling when associating a thing with the designation that is assigned to it. Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 13:34:48 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US