Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es>...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:33:16 +0100, "Ja Lar" <jalar_at_nomail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Why is it a great blunder to equate class with relvar"
> >"Because it is a great blunder to mix type with value or variable". And
> >"type = class"
>
> Indeed, the first statement is not clear for many people but
> type=variable is an evident blunder for anybody who knows what type
> and variable are.

If you say so.

> >Try again: _Why_ is it a great blunder to "mix types with values"? The
> >answer "that's obvious" is of no (logical) value - that's the hole point
in
> >the paper this thread discusses.
>
> If you don't know what types, variables and values are, that is your
> problem.

You are not very helpful: If I don't know the answer to my question, I shouldn't ask it?
Once again: On one hand you say that it is a great blunder to "map a class to a relvar" , and on the other hand you say that it is not a great blunder to "map a list of values to a relation". Why? And once again: Why and how can an atrribute of a relation have another relation as its domain without thus mixing type with values? (type = domain)?

Btw, the original topic of this thread is not whether there is one or two great blunders or not, but if Mr. Gittens arguments against D&D's conclusions are valid, ie. that they give no logical foundation for the conclusion about 1GB and 2GB.
My wish was (is) that you either identify Mr. Gittens blunder, or identify the logical foundation for the conclusion. Received on Tue Nov 23 2004 - 15:25:22 CET