Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 10, 2:19 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> Cimode <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry. I should have been more explicit. I perfectly understand the
> >> relationship between assembler to machine language. I just do not see
> >> how one could use the term *cardinality* for that. I may seem picky
> >> on terminology but I do believe it is an apprpriate term to use.
> >Typo. Sorry. I meant
> >but I dot *not* believe it is an appropriate term to use. One word
> >can make an entire difference.
> You were the one who introduced the term "cardinality" in reply
> to a poster who mentioned the near 1-to-1 mapping of assembly code to
> machine code.
What is the difference between stating language1 and language2 have *mapping 1:1* and stating that a *cardinality 1:1* exists between language1 and language2?
This seems to be a communication problem.
What puzzles me here is that we are using a concept of cardinality/ mapping for languages / models when I believe such concept applies only to something that can be quantified . I hope this clarifies my intent. I believe this is vague.
Regards... Received on Mon Mar 10 2008 - 15:11:15 CET