Re: atomic

David BL wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_ooyah.ac> wrote:

>> David BL wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> I think of these as symmetrical REFERENCE'ing statements and they are
>>>> implicit from the choice of attributes of a relation.  For me, this
>>>> means that the orthodox view is that the form of optional data must
>>>> involve more than one relation.  So if set-valued attributes are
>>>> eligible in the orthodox framework, I think I'd want to be able to say
>>>> similar sentences about them.
>>> Are you saying you want to make statements about sets without those
>>> statements being reinterpreted as instead applying to the elements of
>>> the sets?
>>> ...
>> I'm not sure if I understand you but at first glance I'd say no, that's
>> not what I "want".  I think if there is missing information then we
>> can't express that in a conventional RM theory without multiple
>> relations.

No, I meant to "going to" defining two or more relations to allow for missing information. I object to 6NF as a solution for missing info (but I admit I haven't read much about it and my objection is not even intuitive, just instinctive, ie., that my peculiar attitude about dimensions is that manipulating them at the same time as you are subject to them is unnatural, but that's a way other topic). Received on Wed Nov 07 2007 - 05:25:45 CET