Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]
From: VC <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:24:23 -0400
Message-ID: <Kp-dnXo1K5JYAFXfRVn-2w_at_comcast.com>
> A predicate over what? Before you can define a predicate you have to
> define the domains it applies to.
> You forgot to model the domains. The attributes have to be associated with
> a domain.
> You forgot to model that relations must have a unique name. And what is
> exaclty a "set of constraints on RR"? You didn't define that properly.
> You forgot to model that the tuples have to be consistent with the header
> of the relation.
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:24:23 -0400
Message-ID: <Kp-dnXo1K5JYAFXfRVn-2w_at_comcast.com>
"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message
news:SiSxe.136301$no5.7264319_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> VC wrote:
>> "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message >> news:I4Cxe.135796$Bh7.7066690_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >>>Jon Heggland wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>Not personally, but what more do you need than definitions of value, >>>>domain, tuple and relation, and a minimal set of algebra operators? >>> >>>The notions of database schema, database constraints, database instances >>>and how they are exactly related. >> A constraint (in the RM) is just a predicate [required to evaluate to >> true]. >
> A predicate over what? Before you can define a predicate you have to
> define the domains it applies to.
With the RM, sort of obvious, no ?
In a similar way, one can define predicates involving two or more relational variables. The resulting constraints are usually called database constraints.
> >> A relation schema is a schema name R and a set of attributes A: R(A) >
> You forgot to model the domains. The attributes have to be associated with
> a domain.
> >> A database schema is a pair (RR, C) where RR is a set of relation >> schemata and C is a set of constraints on RR. >
> You forgot to model that relations must have a unique name. And what is
> exaclty a "set of constraints on RR"? You didn't define that properly.
I did not. See above: "a relation schema is a schema *name* ...". C is a collection of database constraints, relation constraints, attribute constraints and, if one admits user defined types or 'objects', type constraints. Simple, no ?, especially in comparison to alternative data models.
> >> A relation instance for R(A) is a set of tuples. >
> You forgot to model that the tuples have to be consistent with the header
> of the relation.
I did not, see the R(A) notation.
>
> -- Jan Hidders
Received on Mon Jul 04 2005 - 04:24:23 CEST