Re: General semantics

From: Nilone <>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

On May 21, 5:02 pm, paul c <> 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 - 19:42:28 CEST

Original text of this message