Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XytSnGO476xAFwyR_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>...
> In message <2bGxc.6816$n03.2311_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, Eric Kaun
> <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> writes
> >"Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> >news:c0e3f26e.0406080151.2f2f3221_at_posting.google.com...
> >> Where did you get that axiom from that "data comes in tuples"? Codd's
> >> rule #1 says that all data in the database is to be REPRESENTED in
> >> only one way: as values in attributes of tuples. It is a prescribed
> >> RULE for building relational databases, it is not a claim that
> >> anything in the real world "comes in tuples". We have a similar rule
> >> in English that all objects are represented by words made up from the
> >> 26 letters of the alphabet; it is not an "axiom" that says that
> >> objects "come in" combinations of the letters A-Z.
> >
> >Ah, an excellent analogy. I'm sure it's flawed, but it gets the point across
> >in a new way... thanks.

(Yes, I fear it is flawed too!)

>
> But in the reality we live in, all objects DO come in combinations of
> A-Z. So it has to be a theorem or an axiom. And if it's a theorem, from
> what axioms is it derived?

IT ISN'T AN AXIOM OR A THEOREM!!!!!!!!!!! That's my point! I could today to invent a new way of representing objects, using only the 12 letters A to L, or using shapes and colours, whatever. It would surely work, but it would be neither an axiom ("it is self-evidently true that all real-world objects come in combinations of the letters A to L") nor a theorem. It would just be a method for representing real-world objects. Received on Thu Jun 10 2004 - 11:25:58 CEST