Re: Examples of SQL anomalies?

On Jun 29, 12:15 am, paul c <toledoby..._at_ac.ooyah> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > "Beginning with the introduction of the Relational Model in 1970 [Codd
> > 1970],
> > all approaches to relational system design have been entity oriented
> > -- that
> > is, oriented to the representation of entities. Relationships are
> > unnamed and
> > for the most part, invisible. ...
>
> Not to disparage the rest of the website (because I haven't read it) but
> I'd say the above has got things reversed. In Codd's model, it is
> entities that are invisible, ie., only visible in the eye of the
> beholder, in spite of the many mystical posts to the contrary in this
> newsgroup over the years from those who see things that aren't there (as
> opposed to people who can see things that ought to be there). Whereas
> at least in Codd's first two or three papers that are more or less
> universally considered seminal, he talks of pretty much nothing but
> relationships, named relationships at that. They are his essential
> programmer's interface for gosh sake! - and so are necessarily visible.

Yes, Codd even formally referred to relations + headers as "relationships" at one point. Regards, J. Received on Mon Jun 30 2008 - 04:59:37 CEST