Path: text.usenetserver.com!out02b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pd7cy1no!pd7cy2no!shaw.ca!pd7urf1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.84.208.66 From: paul c User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: pro- foreign key propaganda? References: <9e62cc4a-4e40-4cf5-9503-2bd77e0ddf46@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <4831cfa1$0$4060$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net> <8DxYj.2918$pk1.637@trndny07> <9eYYj.285346$pM4.76072@pd7urf1no> <4834e7b8$0$4049$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net> <48359a9c$0$4036$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 30 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 04:05:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.59.144.75 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7urf1no 1211515529 64.59.144.75 (Thu, 22 May 2008 22:05:29 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 22:05:29 MDT Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Xref: usenetserver.com comp.databases.theory:171483 X-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 00:05:29 EDT (text.usenetserver.com) Brian Selzer wrote: ... > Who here pretends that an algebraic structure embodies actual 'entities?' > Can you cite examples? And by the way, I suggest you read Codd's book. > Pages 89-90 describe the Update operator and the justification for it. > Also, you might want to look at the article "Extending the Database > Relational Model to Capture More Meaning" in TODS 4-4. On page 400, where > he is describing the original Relational Model, he writes, > > All insertions into, updates of, and deletions from base relations are > constrained > by the following two rules.... > > I could cite other instances, but I think these sufficiently show that > you're interpretation of Codd's use of the word 'update' is faulty. > ... Not to mention any names, BS, but Codd's venture into semantics has troubled a lot of the deeper thinkers and prompted many sycophants to waste a lot of time for the rest of us. I had a feeling that mentioning update might get a mystic or two going, apologies to the others for mentioning it. Regarding this, I prefer to think that he was just having some fun, hoping to provoke insights in others that he wasn't yet sure of (also because I thought he was a nice guy and I respected the clarity and resolve he had both before and after his most famous invention). Suit yourself if you'd rather spend all your time preferring to think what you want. It's hard for me to converse with mystics, especially the ones who can't stay on on a single track, mystical or otherwise!