Re: One-To-One Relationships
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <2a183117-53ae-4f57-9c1e-f7573e1b46f2_at_g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 30, 6:03 pm, Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
I like the insight that both 'entities' and 'relationships' are subtypes of a parent concept, that is simply a set of attributes and values. I'd like to see a formalization of that which doesn't rely on relational theory and the concept of keys however, even though I imagine there would be a direct correspondence.
>
> (But then BB remark was that order line is a weak entity).
Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 19:33:49 CET