Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Marshall  Spight" <marshall.spight@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: circular relationships ok?
Date: 3 Mar 2006 12:50:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <1141419031.856547.132870@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <440718b9$1@news.fhg.de>
   <1141317138.737621.294520@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <1141318257.897955.150140@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
   <440727b9$1@news.fhg.de>
   <1141333040.551974.105530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
   <1141338229.205016.317760@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <6fve02p81irjbqrf4b4h6gpkaof8160213@4ax.com>
   <1141342541.879424.143060@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
   <8i3f02p6ft6c5fs105iitackpra93b17q8@4ax.com>
   <1141354261.916925.119110@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <uuug029msg2u7tua9s9raj6usoflbu1dfn@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.24.66.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1141419037 30112 127.0.0.1 (3 Mar 2006 20:50:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 20:50:37 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <uuug029msg2u7tua9s9raj6usoflbu1dfn@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=172.24.66.4;
   posting-account=s2xCFw0AAAD2mIwYYHAqjdsecwG0axmW
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:37210

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2006 18:51:01 -0800, "Marshall  Spight"
> <marshall.spight@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'm not getting it. If we're talking about husband and wife in
> >a context in which there is exactly one-for-one always,
> >then we are talking about a table of married people. In
>
>      No.  The husband and wife exist as separate entities and may be
> referred to individually.  There may *also* be a table reflecting the
> marriages.
>
> >which case, why wouldn't I have HusbandBirthday, WifeBirthday,
> >etc.? In fact, I don't really see how the particular domain
>
>      Because you probably want the birthdate of the person regardless
> of the role the person has in a marriage.  People who are not married
> have birthdates, too.

This line of reasoning doesn't work for me at all. The question
was whether to put data items which are exactly-one-to-exactly-one
in the same table; it is not relevant to argue that you might not
want to do so because they might not be exactly-one-to-exactly-one.


Marshall