Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design

On 28 jan, 02:12, mAsterdam <mAster...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jan Hidders wrote:
mAsterdam wrote something very much like:
Pragmatical redefinitions must be temporary and tracked.
Sure, we agree on that.

<unsnip>

Wether the relation between heading and tuples goes
via names or ordering is relevant or not.

If it is not I want it out of scope.

</unsnip>

I don't think that it is possible to get it out of scope. If you think
it is, then by all means provide an equivalent and complete definition
where it is. I'm also not sure what your problem exactly is. We have a
definition that works for the named perspective, which is arguably the
most appropriate for the relational model anyway, so can we now
please, please, please, pretty please, move on with the discussion?

DEFINITION: Two relations R and S are said to have dependency-induced
overlap if there is a dependency that requires that sometimes some
tuples(1) of R are also in S.

(1) for some definition of tuples that allows restricted
reshuffling of its values. To do.

The only way to achieve (1) so that it also takes all normal inclusion
dependencies into account is to define tuples as something equivalent
to bags of values.

Nice, a third alternative way to state the same relation.
How can this be relevant?

It shows to what unacceptable consequences your demand is leading. It
destroys the relational model as we know it.

Such an operation on its internal organs is going
to change the relational model beyond recognition.

This is hardly surprising when part of the (database local)
definition of relation is under discussion. More specifically:
How do tuples conform to relation headers?

Hm? What makes you think that this is under discussion? As far as I am
concerned we are firmly sticking to the usual definitions.

I'm going to
strongly insist that we stick to the classical definitions of the
named perspective and state in the definition that we are talking
about inclusion up to relabeling:

DEFINITION: Two relations R and S are said to have dependency-induced
overlap if there is a dependency that requires that sometimes some
tuples of R are also in S after renaming the attribute names.

Two glossary todo items: [Trivial](new) and [Type].
The s/meaning overlap/dependency induced overlap/
did help to clarify.

This time 'type' is the label on a jar containing something else.

I don't think I used the word "type" in any of my definitions. I only
mentioned it because you did. You want to redefine that also? Is there
no end to this madness? ;-)

Which 'classical definitions of the named perspective' do you mean?

As in the Alice book. Pretty much *the* authority in the area of
database theory.

Do you have a suggestion for
s/type/$some_name_dependent_notion_similar_to_but_not_the_same_as_type/
in PoOD related discussions ?

Yes, don't. :-) IMNSHO that part of the POOD discussion clearly
doesn't make sense and at best leads only to a crippled version of the
relational model. But if you insist and want a name for that kind of
thing then I can tell that suspect (but might be wrong because it's
not really well defined) that the thing your are talking about is
often called a "named type", and if you want to emphasize that you are
talking about the other kind the term "anonymous type" is often used.

-- Jan Hidders

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design
    ... "Relational Scaling and Databases" by Joachim Hereth, ... overlap if there is a dependency that requires that sometimes some ... It destroys the relational model as we know it. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design
    ... overlap if there is a dependency that requires that sometimes some ... A join dependency is said to be a proper if it does not ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design
    ... Wether the relation between heading and tuples goes ... overlap if there is a dependency that requires that sometimes some ... Which 'classical definitions of the named perspective' do you mean? ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: WWW/Internet 2009: 2nd CFP until 21 September
    ... The relational view of data as regards data in transit over a network extends the scope of discussion of the relational model beyond the scope contemplated in 1970. ... The discussion in 1970 and for many years afterwards focussed on the application of the relational model to the organization of data banks for large scale sharing of data. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
Quantcast