Re: A simple notation, again

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1184831311.154363.226930_at_z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 2:57 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > On Jul 16, 7:05 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>"David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >>How about something like this
> > >>{(Last, First, Num) :
> > >>("David", "Cressey", 1),
> > >>("Marshall", "Spight", 2),
> > >>("Bob", "Badour", 3),
> > >>("Jan", "Hidders", 4)}
> >
> > > You imply order (adjacency) when relation attributes should not be
> > > subjected to any....
> >
> > When Codd wrote of eliminating order dependency, he wasn't talking about
> > language notations or grammars, in fact he used ordering to describe his
> > idea!
> I know but thank you for reminding. Order however in grammar is
> imposed by header not body. Never felt comfortable with that. In
> other words, why would sets unordered nature not be reflected on the
> grammar that expresses them?
>
>

I'll remind you and everyone else that what I'm coming up with is a notation, and not a grammar. Order in a notation does not always imply order in the things denoted. Received on Thu Jul 19 2007 - 13:41:54 CEST