Re: On formal HAS-A definition
From: Nilone <reaanb_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 00:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c9d86f42-e743-487c-a3f0-023e8710c8d3_at_24g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 00:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c9d86f42-e743-487c-a3f0-023e8710c8d3_at_24g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
On May 7, 1:38 am, r..._at_raampje.lan (Reinier Post) wrote:
> I don't think I'm bothered by that fact. Belief in strong typing
> tends to do that to you. An employee just isn't a department
> so why would an employee ever need to pose as one?
It looks to me like tuples are being equated with entities.
> nor composition (in the cardinality sense).
Yep, there's the entity.
A relation is not a domain. Received on Fri May 07 2010 - 09:00:45 CEST