Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:35:51 -0800
Message-ID: <c8q9u251tpvunn1g0m3k3mso7nm1u8rkuo_at_4ax.com>
mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
>paul c wrote:
>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>> ...
>>> A rephrase to (i) could be:
>>>
>>> <reference>
>>> (i a)
>>> A relation R with attribute a (written as R(a)) having
>>> a as a reference into S(b)
>>> is expressed as follows:
>>>
>>> forall R(a): exists S(b): a = b
>>>
>>> Note that b need not be a ck to S, hence 'into', not 'to'.
>>> </reference>
>>>
>>>
>>> But what exactly is the reference referencing?
>>
>> I'm sure there is a term for that kind of English phrasing. For myself,
>> the phrase "reference referencing" seems unnecessarily ornamental.
>
>Ornamental? I am a non-native speaker of English - maybe a
>native speaker (you are, aren't you?) can put into less words
>than this what I mean with it.
>
>How would you say: "The stuff referenced is not a tuple in S,
>but a subset of S".
>> In ordinary English, one relation references another.
^^^^^^^^^^ "refers to".
>One relation may reference several others.
>What do you call the individual referencing attribute sets?
I do not know.
>What do you call the stuff being referenced?
"referee" is possible, but probably "target" or "object".
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 03:35:51 CET