Re: One-To-One Relationships
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <7178a8f2-d4fa-4d24-b946-2edc0a49caca_at_i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> 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.
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <7178a8f2-d4fa-4d24-b946-2edc0a49caca_at_i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 3, 5:00 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Are you still actively working on this? There has been radio silence for a while so I assumed you had stopped.
I am working on this very actively. I have some interesting results and some even more interesting ideas that I have yet to nail down.
Marshall Received on Mon Dec 03 2007 - 21:28:58 CET