Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:04:25 GMT
Message-ID: <JON_i.211280$th2.157470_at_pd7urf3no> 






Bob Badour wrote:


...


> 

> He also said an attribute is a set of values.





Not saying I'll ever get past the first page but I feel fairly 
comfortable with the first couple of "paragraphs", even if an ellipsis 
might be missing and even though I would have rather seen attribute 
described as a pair the way D&D do - my reason for this is that it might 
be easier to compare with whatever the later pages say, eg., avoiding 
words like "consists".  (Maybe this is only because my pet peeve in RM 
talk and IT in general is that the common vocabulary is way too large; a 
lesser peeve is that some words are way over-used but I think my lesser 
peeve is the pet peeve of many other people, "object" is an example - 
I'd say it's what Edward de Bono called a porridge word.)



Do the first few paragraphs really say an attribute is a set of values? 
  (I saw the bit about a domain being a set of values which doesn't seem 
untoward to me.)
Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 03:04:25 CET












Original text of this message