(Apologies for reviving a dead horse, but may not be around at the blessed time.)
As potential names of this concept, I liked record and row, but agreed they were
a bit too specific and not quite exact. In my recent (unrelated) reading
however, I came across another term and think it might fit better, called an
"entity."
It has some nice properties:
- Traditional dictionary definition, meaning "thing"
- Same specificity as the current base-class name: object
- Corresponds to a class or instance (depending on context) in data
terminology
From: http://ewebarchitecture.com/web-databases/database-entities
An entity is a thing or object of importance about which data must be
captured. Information about an entity is captured in the form of attributes
and/or relationships.
All things aren't entities—only those about which information should be
captured. If something is a candidate for being an entity and it has no
attributes or relationships, it isn't an entity.
Thoughts? Another candidate is "container" but is not very descriptive.
-Mike
On 2017-09-16 11:14, Steve Holden wrote:
> I therefore propose "row", which is sufficiently neutral to avoid most current
> opposition and yet a common field-oriented mechanism for accessing units of
> retrieved data by name.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4