Re: Objects and Relations

On 22 feb, 15:35, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I realise Codd made that distinction when first introducing his notation
> in the 1970 paper. I don't find it a useful distinction, and I am
> unaware of anyone using it since. Different notations are simply
> different representations of the same 'thing': a relation.

"Relationship" is an English language quirck because the "ship" termination means "relation".

For instance the equivalent to "relationship" does not exist in Spanish because it would be a redundant word: "relacionalidad" ("relationality").

> > It took me a long time to come to this view. When I first saw ERM, I
> > thought of it as "RM lite". That's not the best way to use it. The best
> > way to use it is to distinguish between data analysis (ERM), and abstract
> > (logical?) database design, (RM).
>
> > Just my two cents.
>
> ERM is not lite. ERM is very heavy with hallucinated distinctions.

But it is lite in expressive power.

Regards Received on Thu Feb 22 2007 - 16:18:38 CET