It's pizza-time again (was: c.d.theory glossary - RELATION)
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 12:36:30 +0200
Message-ID: <40937db9$0$64453$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
x wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>These sure do not have the sense of 'aboutness' ... >>Equating 'fact' and 'thing' gives me an uneasy feeling.
>
> Fact and EXISTING thing.
> I have seen this before in a book about logic.
> Relations viewed as objects ...
Several times I have used and explained ER-modelling
in order to grow preliminary database designs, with
mixed teams of IT- and subject-matter (non-IT)
professionals.
I called it 'entity-modelling' in order to avoid
clashes with existing notions about relations.
The graphical part of the model would have boxes representing
entities and lines between those boxes.
I used the term associations for the lines between the boxes.
iow: I used association as a synonym for ER.RELATIONSHIP to avoid
(near) homonymity with RM.RELATION.
This was just an introduction to expand on my uneasy feeling
towards equating 'thing' and 'fact'.
In that context I also used a distinction:
_thing_ :
_fact_ :
pizza, topping, table, clock, customer, onion, order, order-item.
(now I am not so sure about the last two).
"the customer at table 12 ordered 2 neapolitan icecreams".
Am I the only one to use this distinction?
Should I avoid it because it is flawed?
Do we need it discussing database?
Please help, I'm stuck! Received on Sat May 01 2004 - 12:36:30 CEST