Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:22:55 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad76883$0$23765$>

paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour 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?
> The label that means what someone wants it to mean instead of what it 
> means to everybody else.

In the dbms, the label is merely a name for a relation: no more and no less. One might as easily use D as Donor.

I am confused. Are you disagreeing with that?

You refer to mysticism a lot, and I remain unsure what you mean by it. Does that make me a mystic? Received on Thu Oct 15 2009 - 20:22:55 CEST

Original text of this message