Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:37:32 -0400
Message-ID: <47ac854d\$0\$4030\$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>

David Cressey wrote:

```> "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>
```

>>On Feb 5, 4:55 am, thesabote..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 3, 1:02 pm, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2 feb, 13:50, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
>>>>[huge snips]
>>>>
>>>>> I think 'named perspective' was just an unfamiliar
>>>>> label to a familiar concept.
>>>
>>>>Yes. The named perspective is the usual perspective where tuples are
>>>>defined as functions from attribute names to domain values, and the
>>>>unnamed perspective is where they are defined as sequences. The latter
>>>>is sometimes preferred in theoretical work because it is closer to how
>>>>logicians formalize things (in P(x,y,z) there are no attribute names,
>>>>just the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place in the predicate) and it simplifies
>>>>notation sometimes.
>>>
>>>I would echo that this is an important distinction to be aware of. I
>>>personally favour the named perspective for a couple of reasons:
>>>first, when Codd introduced attribute names there was an implicit
>>>shift from a traditional ordered mathematical tuple, to a "tuple"
>>>being viewed as an (unordered) partial function. Second, without the
>>>attribute name a datum is in fact no datum at all, but rather simply
>>>noise. Attributes are as much a component of the data under
>>>consideration as the value they are mapped to. Hence, to disregard (or
>>>rather externalize) attributes from a mathematical model of data seems
>>>rather imprudent.
>>
>>It is a tricky issue. The approach usually used in predicate logic
>>is to leave attributes unnamed and bind them to names with
>>specific constructs within the context of a single sentence.
>>If we bind the attributes directly to names, we get some
>>convenience in the common case, but we also raise some
>>issues.
>>
>>A common case in SQL is that we want to join two tables
>>via an attribute that is the primary key of one table and a
>>foreign key in another table, and they have the same name.
>>Often the join is written out longhand anyway:
>>
>> SELECT ... from R, S WHERE R.RId = S.Rid
>>
>>The WHERE clause here is annoyingly boilerplate. Natural
>>join, and named attributes, seem the obvious antidote to
>>this boilerplate.
```>
> INNER JOIN ... ON seems a little less annoying than  your boilerpplate.
> Natural join seems more elegant,  but seems to depend on naming conventions.
>
> But how about the following:
>
> S.Rid REFERENCES R.Rid;
> SELECT ... from S, R via S.Rid
>
> The first of these two could be stored once in metadata,  created at the
> same time table S is created.  It could be used, if desired, to enforce
> referential integrity.
>
> Note that the "via" operator connects the home table  of Rid with a column
> from a different table.  That's not a typo.

```

I don't like it at all. It has a navigational flavour and loses symmetry. Received on Fri Feb 08 2008 - 17:37:32 CET

Original text of this message