Re: One-To-One Relationships
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 05:00:05 -0800 (PST)
On 3 dec, 05:26, "V.J. Kumar" <vjkm..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote innews:356a41b2-62b0-4106-942f-5670b998435e_at_p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> > On 2 dec, 05:37, "V.J. Kumar" <vjkm..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:7114bf62-b7a6-4b8b-a515-dafc0f24fe62_at_l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
> >> om:
> >> > Ah, yes, and as we all know, if two concepts have overlap then they
> >> > are actually the same. *sigh* The distinction between entities /
> >> > relationships, domain objects / predicates is pretty
> >> > well-established in linguistics, philosophy and logic. First-order
> >> > logic, you may have heard of it, separates them even strictly.
> >> Is that so ? What is 'entity' and 'domain object' in the first order
> >> logic ?
> > In FOL a domain object is an object in the domain. An element of the
> > domain of discourse, if you prefer that terminology.
> None of the introductory or otherwise math logic books uses this kind
> terminology ('entity', 'domain objects').
The term "domain" is common, and it is not unusual to refer to elements of the domain as domain objects. Google around and you will find even find respectable journal papers that do this. I have the pleasure of currently doing research with logicians (on Vadim's relational lattice) and they assure me it's widely accepted terminology.
- Jan Hidders