On Wednesday 04 September 2002 17:07, Brett Schwarz wrote:
> But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly
> refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. However, I
> do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated...
In MS Access they can be a combination of Queries and Tables.
Not knowing any better, if it a relationship of any kind, then call it a
relation. At least us unwashed from the MS Access world would get
a better handle on it. ( if that is what they really are )
John
>
> On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:00, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> > Ross and Iavor:
> > > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual
> > > > > schema
> > > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing.
> > > >
> > > > Not renamed yet.
> > >
> > > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How
> > > does
> > > "diagrams" strike you all?
> >
> > Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of
> > correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be
> > correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built
> > there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab
> > (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to
> > build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity).
> > Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'.
> >
> > Iavor
--
John Turner
JCI Inc.
http://home.ntelos.net/~JLT
"Just because you do not know the answer
does not mean that someone else does"
Stephen J. Gould, {rip}
