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

"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message news:AJ6pd.34550$0d1.1769598_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:52:30 +0100, "Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So the set of values specified by the type is (in this case) a set of
> >>relations.
> >
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> >
> >>But the set of values that a relation is ("contains") cannot be mapped
to
> >>the set of values that a type is ("contains")
> >
> >
> > They can be mapped but then you are not mapping a relation to a type,
> > you are mapping the values contained in the tuples of a relation to
> > the values of a type. This is a value to value mapping.
> >
> >
> >>, ie. "a relation cannot be a
> >>type", if I understand you right ?
> >
> >
> > This is true, but this is not the same as you said above.
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, Leandro, are you seriously contending that DBMSs
> that treat relational variables as types are making a fundamental
> mistake because by definition relational variables and types are
> distinct in the sense that something cannot be both at the same time?
>
> I simply cannot believe that you do not see what is problematic about
> this type of argument. Seriously.

I'm trying to catch up and thought perhaps someone could answer these two questions --

1. Has anyone provided any better logic related to the 1GB than that provided by Date? If not, I would think we could talk about this as intuition or hypothesis that there is a mistake rather than anything resembling a proof, right?
2. Has anyone given a good refutation that there is no Great Blunder other than to attack the lack of logic in the defense of the 1GB?

Thanks in advance for helping me catch up. Cheers! --dawn Received on Mon Nov 29 2004 - 23:44:44 CET