Re: attribute name conflicts

paul c wrote:
> I believe Codd originally envisaged "tables" that had what he called
> domain names to identify "columns" but that in his second paper, he
> introduced what we know of as attribute names because he wanted, for
> example, to allow for relations between things of the same type, such as
> ones used for bills of materials.
>
> That's fine as far as single relations go, but it's always led me to a
> question about a whole database. Does it ever make sense within a given
> application (as opposed to within a given db) to have two different
> attribute names that identify different types/domains?
>
> (obviously those attribute names would occur in the def'ns of distinct
> relations.)
>
> p

Oops, sorry about that, I meant to ask: Does it ever make sense within a given appl'n to have two different relations that use the same attribute name but with different types?

p Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 18:30:26 CEST