Re: Terminology for composite attributes

I was a bit concerned that the map from reality to conceptual model might prompt responses such as this. I'd like to discuss your point too, but my question is really about terms that would work for describing the move from a scalar value to a struct (multiple scalar values of possibly different types), given a particular logical model.

So, replace "Person" with "A" and "Phone" with "B" and so on so that the reality mapping doesn't interfere. Using a relational model, both multivalued attributes and composite attributes get split out into separate relations before the logical modeling is completed, but before that happens there is a recognition by the modeler that what was a single value must now hold multivalues (in the one case) or what was a single value must now hold a "composite value."

Does that terminology work or is there a better way to say it?

Then we can chat about your point and the mapping from reality that might put HairColor as an attribute of Person even though it is clearly an attribute of Hair.

smiles. --dawn
P.S. I'll have to figure out how google groups posting lets me include a quote from post I'm replying to, but will send this without for now. Received on Mon Mar 21 2005 - 16:48:12 CET