Talk:Relvar

This probably needs to go to wikitictionary, as it doesn't seem to fit in wikipedia. --Apyule 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And it can be lucky if it survives in wiktionary. It's an artificial term, coined by one person, and never *ever* used elsewhere. I'm actually only writing this because I'm annoyed that I was sent here from the Candidate key article, which is using the term 'relvar' a few times. I mean come on, even the book itself (the only place where this term is seriously used) says "we should warn you that the term relvar is not in common usage". I say this article (and the references) should go. -- Scratchy (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The term also appears in Date's Third Manifesto 69.70.21.218 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scratchy, as I was directed here from Superkey and this article had degenerated into an article more concerned with delegitimizing the use of the term than with explaining what it was supposed to mean. I think this article should be replaced with an article for relation variable--which currently redirects to a generic page. M. Frederick (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A major problem with this article, before the changes I applied on October 3rd 2013, was that it claimed relation variable to be Codd's original term. In fact Codd used the simple term relation to refer to variables of that ilk as well as relations. Date (and I, jointly, as it happens) decided to use "relation variable" to maintain a clear terminological distinction between the two concepts and avoid the ambiguity that had previously pervaded the literature (and, alas, still does) back in the 1990s. And after we had written "relation variable" a few hundred times we quickly realised that an abbreviation was needed. Actually, the term relvar has caught on to some extent, such that sometimes I even see it used when relation was the right term!

AndrewWarden (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC) (Hugh Darwen)