Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:20:32 GMT
Message-ID: <AGQ_i.212262$th2.116249_at_pd7urf3no> 






David BL wrote:


> On Nov 15, 10:01 am, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:



>> On Nov 14, 2:21 pm, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 1:20 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> paul c wrote:
>>>>> David BL wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~davidbl/MVattributes.doc
>>>>>> This is still a work in progress.
>>>>>> I welcome any comments.
>>>> By the second paragraph, the document entered into the realm of
>>>> nonsense, and I stopped reading.
>>> An attribute has a name and a domain.  How is that nonsense?
>> You didn't say an attribute *has* a name and a domain. You said
>> an attribute *is* a name and a domain. So you can have two
>> different attributes with the same name.




> 

> I said an attribute *consists* of a name and a domain.  That is


> compatible with saying an attribute has (and only has) a name and a

> domain.   I assume you're not making some philosophical point about

> the sum being greater than the parts;  IMO distinguishing between

> "has" and "is" is splitting hairs.  In natural language at that!

> ...




I think un-formal words like "consists" hold just as many dangers as 
words like "has" and "is", those two being know to have caused all kinds 
of controversy.  I say keep it formal, less chance of vague imagination 
taking hold.  Imagination should be reserved to the thought behind the 
words, if you ask me.
Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 06:20:32 CET












Original text of this message