Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:06:47 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad7489c$0$23776$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> On Oct 15, 11:37 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>paul c wrote:
>>
>>>Roy Hann wrote:
>>
>>>>...
>>>>Can one have a donor who has not donated (yet)? ...
>>
>>>That is a great question because it indicates the rampant database
>>>mysticism in the semi-literate so-called developed world.  I'm sure
>>>there are db's where prospective donors are called donors and a donor
>>>isn't required to actually donate!  Managers without budgets are similar.
>>
>>I am not sure what you mean by mysticism. What part is mystical? What
>>makes it mystical?

>
> I wonder too. For example, if one is a registered organ
> donor but has not yet died and donated their organs, are
> they mystical?
>
> KHD
He might be saying it's mysticism that says a donor must have previously donated. After all, these are just names. As far as the DBMS is concerned, they might as well be X and Y as any other name.

But I think we should probably let Paul answer for himself. Received on Thu Oct 15 2009 - 18:06:47 CEST