Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?
From: Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6fa13730-79fc-4a7a-b681-e35915c3bfb3_at_a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6fa13730-79fc-4a7a-b681-e35915c3bfb3_at_a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 15, 11:37 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> paul c wrote:
> > Roy Hann wrote:
>
> >> ...
> >> Can one have a donor who has not donated (yet)? ...
>
> > That is a great question because it indicates the rampant database
> > mysticism in the semi-literate so-called developed world. I'm sure
> > there are db's where prospective donors are called donors and a donor
> > isn't required to actually donate! Managers without budgets are similar.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by mysticism. What part is mystical? What
> makes it mystical?
I wonder too. For example, if one is a registered organ
donor but has not yet died and donated their organs, are
they mystical?
KHD