Re: One-To-One Relationships
From: Jan Hidders <hidders_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <90be0b70-aacd-4c99-bbff-ddcbea4a95b9_at_d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
> Anything that can be described as a noun is an entity in my book,
> whether abstract or not. We must be able to describe them by their
> attributes, and identify them by one attribute that is consistent over
> the lifetime in the universe of discourse. That's my take.
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <90be0b70-aacd-4c99-bbff-ddcbea4a95b9_at_d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
On 30 nov, 15:17, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Anything that can be described as a noun is an entity in my book,
> whether abstract or not. We must be able to describe them by their
> attributes, and identify them by one attribute that is consistent over
> the lifetime in the universe of discourse. That's my take.
Why by only one attribute? Why not by a set of attributes? Or a combination of attributes and relationships (as is the case for weak entities)?
- Jan Hidders