Re: Objects and Relations

JOG wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:54 am, Joe Thurbon <use..._at_thurbon.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe, good to see you are still about.

Thanks Jim. I've been trying to keep a low profile until I'd read a bit more. This thread got one of the points that I found interesting, thought, so I thought I might jump in.

[...]

>
> Remember we need something *in the real world* to identify the things
> we talk about. The problem has to be dealt with way before we even get
> to the database.
>

Interesting. This, I guess, is part of the perspective you can get when the details become more familiar.

[...]

> >
> > Would I be correct in saying that all OIDs are surrogate identifiers,
> > but that not all surrogate identifiers are OIDs?

> No. OID's are a programming mechanism - they are pointers.

Ok.

>> BUT one entity can have two values for the surrogate identifier.

I guess I was thinking along these lines. Say, for example, social security fraud. When you see some tuples in some PEOPLE relation, with a primary key SSN.

Person: {<SSN:12345, Name:"Fred">, <SSN:23456, Name:"Bill">}

it is safe to assume that

• there is an entity we are modelling, call him entity_fred, with a name "Fred", and an SSN 1234. No other entity exists with a SSN 12345.
• there is an entiry we are modelling, call him entity_bill, with a name "Bill" and, an SSN 2345. No other entity exists with a SSN 12345.

However, the relation, taken alone, does NOT mean that the entity_fred and entity_bill are distinct entities.

>

>> (2) No two entities can share the same OID, AND no entity can have two OIDs.

Sure.

>

>> Cheers,
>> Joe

This seems like a really useful, concise description of the difference. Especially in light of you comment above, i.e. programming construct vs logical attribute. Did you mean obstruse, or obtuse, though?

I'll have more questions, of course.

Thanks muchly,
Joe Received on Thu Feb 15 2007 - 21:59:34 CET