On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Sören Auer <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>wrote: > Michael Hausenblas wrote: > >> Though I see your point, DDL is the most general form of what we are >> talking >> about, here, covering data model elements >> > > I actually think DDL is not a very general form, but rather a very specific > language for creating and manipulating relational schema objects. > > IMO, we should stick to the specifics. Hence, using DDL should be appropriate. > > (for sure DROP, ALTER is not in >> scope, but this is a no-brainer, I guess ;) >> > > Ok, but DDLs consist *only* of such statements, cf. e.g.: > > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/sql-syntax-data-definition.html > > > What is missing from that list, that we should take in account? > I'm fine with DDL and think we have used it in the discussion throughout >> as >> such ... >> > > We can use the term DDL if everybody in the group got used to it, but from > a conceptual point of view I think this is wrong and in order to avoid > confusion with the outside world we should rather talk about /data model > elements/ or /schema objects/. > > I think we can combine the two in this list that we are going to make. But we should also be on the same page. I see that you have Foreign Key, Integrity Constraints and Referential Integrity separate. Why? Aren't referential constraints a subset of integrity constraints. And a foreign key is a referential constraints. Those shouldn't be separate, but express them as subclasses. Sören >
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:00:28 UTC