Re: MV counterexample
From: Tony <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk>
Date: 5 May 2004 12:33:30 -0700
Message-ID: <c0e3f26e.0405051133.1d896668_at_posting.google.com>
Date: 5 May 2004 12:33:30 -0700
Message-ID: <c0e3f26e.0405051133.1d896668_at_posting.google.com>
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:<c7ana5$tag$1_at_news.netins.net>...
> "Karel Miklav" <karel_at_inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message
> news:c7a9eg016dp_at_enews1.newsguy.com...
> > Data is actually just a SET of whatevers, the views could be more or
> > less structured. That's it.
>
> Well, it's good to have PROOF like that! But, what if a better metaphor
> for data is that is it is a tree?
It isn't. In a tree everything is either the root or belongs to something (which belongs to something ... which belongs to the root). Clearly not ALL data fits that metaphor. Not even MOST data does. Received on Wed May 05 2004 - 21:33:30 CEST