Re: General semantics

From: Nilone <reaanb_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <481dff79-bb3f-4b9c-92ea-6729a2b68352_at_34g2000prs.googlegroups.com>



On May 21, 5:02 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>
> Tell us why we need more 'correspondences'.

We don't. I prefer to take a relaxed attitude to it all, though - if it maps to the relational model, it passes. If Halpin asks my opinion, I'll tell him to stick to relational terminology, but until he does, I'll take what I can get. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 12:42:28 CDT

Original text of this message