Re: ID field as logical address
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:56:45 -0300
Message-ID: <4a20923b$0$23761$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> I should remember to hesitate about talking about stuff that isn't fully
> formed, when I criticize others for similar, and which is so easily
> questioned and so easily can be stillborn, but since I brought it up, I
> guess I'm obligated to show some token perserverence. in this case the
> point would be that the set of tuples in the 'unnamed' attribute would
> indeed have names, except, I suppose, if they in turn were 'tuple'
> set-valued. This would all need a recursive relation definition, I
> remember reading a comment of Date's where he specifically restricted
> his view of things to exclude such definitions.
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:56:45 -0300
Message-ID: <4a20923b$0$23761$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> paul c wrote: >> >>> Bob Badour wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> If it is unnamed, how would you refer to it? Names are important >>>> things. >>> >>> That was sort of the point, I wouldn't need to refer to a set-valued >>> attribute. >> >> What's the point of any attribute if one cannot refer to the >> attribute? It would be useless and essentially not there at all.
>
> I should remember to hesitate about talking about stuff that isn't fully
> formed, when I criticize others for similar, and which is so easily
> questioned and so easily can be stillborn, but since I brought it up, I
> guess I'm obligated to show some token perserverence. in this case the
> point would be that the set of tuples in the 'unnamed' attribute would
> indeed have names, except, I suppose, if they in turn were 'tuple'
> set-valued. This would all need a recursive relation definition, I
> remember reading a comment of Date's where he specifically restricted
> his view of things to exclude such definitions.
Of course he would. You have basically re-invented NF-squared, and that was a dumb idea the first time around. Just look at the mess PICK is because it tries to do implicit shit and prevents one from making explicit statements. Names have a purpose. Received on Sat May 30 2009 - 03:56:45 CEST