Re: RM formalism supporting partial information
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:06:06 -0400
Message-ID: <473dcda5$0$5296$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
>
> I agree. I propose to ditch the term "attribute" and to use "heading
> element".
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:06:06 -0400
Message-ID: <473dcda5$0$5296$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On 15 nov, 19:13, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Marshall wrote:
>
>>While I have used the term many times in the past, and I am sure I will >>use it many times in the future, seeing this discussion has impressed >>upon me how unimportant "attribute" is as a concept. >> >>The important concepts are tuples, propositions, predicates etc.
>
> I agree. I propose to ditch the term "attribute" and to use "heading
> element".
I wouldn't even bother with that. In a predicate or proposition, the name is a variable name--either free or bound. In a tuple, the name is also a variable name or the name of a dimension or um a domain name. Received on Fri Nov 16 2007 - 18:06:06 CET