Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:23:51 GMT
Message-ID: <X9wWh.26809$PV3.275974_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Thanks. This makes it much more clear.
>
> Ok, I see.
>
> Thanks for the insightful reply!
Received on Sun Apr 22 2007 - 00:23:51 CEST
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:23:51 GMT
Message-ID: <X9wWh.26809$PV3.275974_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
davis.jeffrey_at_gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:26 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Both. The data types of the attributes are part of the predicates of >>both the variable and the value. Generally speaking, the most specific >>type of any attribute of the value will be a subtype of the declared >>type of the variable.
>
> Thanks. This makes it much more clear.
Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to speak of a value having a predicate. A value is or is part of a proposition used to instantiate a predicate. See http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms3.htm
Data types etc. are properties of values, and predicates identify required properties. In a sense, a relvar is a named predicate.
I apologize for misspeaking earlier.
>>It certainly makes sense to draw attention to the important properties >>of a literal in a given context. I could see someone wanting to overload >>the constraint concept to achieve this goal, but I think that would be a >>mistake.
>
> Ok, I see.
>
> Thanks for the insightful reply!
Received on Sun Apr 22 2007 - 00:23:51 CEST