Re: One-To-One Relationships
From: Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNenashi_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9b2d4a13-aa6e-49c9-9b05-26cae59155d8_at_a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9b2d4a13-aa6e-49c9-9b05-26cae59155d8_at_a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 30, 8:19 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
The distinction between entities /
> relationships, domain objects / predicates is pretty well-established
> in linguistics, philosophy and logic.
That certainly means you can define them formally in database terms,
right?
Here is one such attempt:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.2083v1.pdf
It defines an entity as a relation (aka table:-) with a single
noncomposite key, and relationship as a table with composite key. Does
this definition pretty much exhausts the entity-relationship theory?
(But then BB remark was that order line is a weak entity). Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 19:03:04 CET