Path: news.easynews.com!core-easynews!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!32f31ba7!not-for-mail
From: "Alan" <not.me@uhuh.rcn.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
References: <40c30358$0$568$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <E_Dwc.8882$9g6.4288@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <40c30e76$0$563$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <NKEwc.11001$QT3.8249@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> <40c324a7$0$34762$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <FQHwc.10185$9g6.270@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <c9vib1$d8i$1@news.netins.net>
Subject: Re: cdt
Lines: 67
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <0oIwc.11163$QT3.4201@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:21:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.158.4.151
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1086542460 141.158.4.151 (Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:21:00 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:21:00 EDT
Xref: core-easynews comp.databases.theory:35739
X-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 10:20:21 MST (news.easynews.com)


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt@tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:c9vib1$d8i$1@news.netins.net...
> "Alan" <not.me@uhuh.rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:FQHwc.10185$9g6.270@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> > How about, "Entity: The subject or subjects about which the table is
> > concerned."
>
> I don't think that bringing the term "table" into this is helpful.
Entities
> are implemented as attributes, tables, fields, files, namespaces, and
types,
> for example.
>
> Entity: Thing.  ?
>
> --dawn
>
>

No, you're confusing logical and physical again. Entities exist in the
business logical realm. They have attributes. Tables cross between the
logical and physical, and have rows and columns. They are physically
implemented in RDMSes as part of larger files, or sometimes in their own
file, but that is an implementation detail, not an impementation definition.
Here are some quotes from Joe Celko,

"Like most new ideas, the hard part of understanding what the relational
model is comes in un-learning what you know about file systems.  As Artemus
Ward (William Graham Sumner, 1840-1910) put it, "It ain't so much the things
we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just
ain't so."

If you already have a background in data processing with traditional file
systems, the first things to un-learn are:

 (0) Databases are not file sets.
 (1) Tables are not files.
 (2) Rows are not records.
 (3) Columns are not fields."

"A file is closely related to its physical storage media.  A table may or
may  not be a physical file.  DB2 from IBM uses one file per table, while
Sybase puts several entire databases inside one file.  A table is a
<i>set<i> of rows of the same kind of thing.  A set has no ordering and it
makes no sense to ask for the first or last row."

"Rows versus Records

Rows are not records.  A record is defined in the application program which
reads it; a row is defined in the database schema and not by a program at
all.  The name of the field in the READ or INPUT statements of the
application; a row is named in the database schema."

"Columns versus Fields

A field within a record is defined by the application program that reads it.
A column in a row in a table is defined by the database schema.  The
datatypes in a column are always scalar."

Back to my comments...

Namespace is a term you adopted to bring into this discussion. It is not
applicable. "Type" is an implementation term, or an OO term, but isn't part
of a relational theory discussion. It can be in a glossary, however.