phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | data independence in shared data banks— “In contrast, the problems treated here are those of data independence--the independence of application programs and terminal activities from growth in data types and changes in data representation--and certain kinds of data inconsistency which are expected to become troublesome even in nondeductive systems.” | |
| claim-type | method— “A model based on n-ary relations, a normal form for data base relations, and the concept of a universal data sublanguage are introduced.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Implementations of systems to support the relational model are not discussed.” | |
| transfer | from mathematics / logic (relations, predicate calculus): modelling data as mathematical n-ary relations queried via predicate calculus, giving data independence— “A model based on n-ary relations, a normal form for data base relations, and the concept of a universal data sublanguage are introduced” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | represent data as mathematical relations (tables) decoupled from physical storage, so programs are independent of how data is stored and can be queried with a high-level relational language— “a high level data language which will yield maximal independence” | mechanisms[0] |
| builds-on | n-ary relations and predicate calculus (mathematics/logic)— “A model based on n-ary relations” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | the graph or network model of data [3, 4] then in use for noninferential systems— “The relational view (or model) of data described in Section 1 appears to be superior in several respects to the graph or network model [3, 4] presently in vogue for noninferential systems.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | data description tables in recently developed information systems [5, 6, 7]— “The provision of data description tables in recently developed information systems represents a major advance toward the goal of data independence [5, 6, 7].” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | the connection trap - A NAMED ERROR: mistaking the derivation of connections for the derivation of relations, which the paper attributes to a lack of understanding of relational composition— “A lack of understanding of relational composition has led several systems designers into what may be called the connection trap” | senses[0] |
| sense | derivability - HOLDING FOR ALL TIME, not at an instant: because the relations vary in time, the sequence of operations must yield the relation over a significant period, not once— “The phrase "for all time" is present, because we are dealing with time-varying relations, and our interest is in derivability which holds over a significant period of time” | senses[1] |
| sense | data independence - AS INDEPENDENCE FROM TWO THINGS AT ONCE: growth in data types, and changes in data representation, for application programs and terminal activities alike— “the problems treated here are those of data independence--the independence of application programs and terminal activities from growth in data types and changes in data representation” | senses[2] |
| relation | foreign key —distinct-from→ primary key — a foreign key is DEFINED BY NOT BEING the primary key, while drawing its values from one— “We shall call a domain (or domain combination) of relation R a foreign key if it is not the primary key of R but its elements are values of the primary key of some relation”— “a foreign key if it is not the primary key of R” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | relational model —causes→ data independence — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'it' = relational model (previous sentence); the span writes 'maximal independence between programs ... and machine representation', not 'data independence'.— “it provides a basis for a high level data language which will yield maximal independence between programs on the one hand and machine representation and organization of data on the other” | concept_edges[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the data-independence claim: the range of representation changes THAT CAN BE CHANGED WITHOUT LOGICALLY IMPAIRING SOME APPLICATION PROGRAMS IS STILL QUITE LIMITED— “which can be changed without logically impairing some application programs is still quite limited” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any implementation reading: IMPLEMENTATIONS OF SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT THE RELATIONAL MODEL ARE NOT DISCUSSED— “Implementations of systems to support the relational model are not discussed.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the normalisation account as complete: further operations exist and THESE ARE NOT DISCUSSED IN THIS PAPER— “These are not discussed in this paper.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any use of the paper as a specification for a query language: NEITHER THE PURELY LINGUISTIC DETAILS OF SUCH A LANGUAGE NOR THE IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS ARE DISCUSSED— “Neither the purely linguistic details of such a language nor the implementation problems are discussed.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the consistency-checking proposal at scale: THERE ARE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS (WHICH WE SHALL NOT DISCUSS HERE) IN TAKING AN INSTANTANEOUS SNAPSHOT OF A COLLECTION OF RELATIONS, SOME OF WHICH MAY BE VERY LARGE AND HIGHLY VARIABLE— “There are practical problems (which we shall not discuss here) in taking an instantaneous snapshot of a collection of relations, some of which may be very large and highly variable.” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any answer obtained by following paths through linked records: it is correct only in the very special case that the target relation is the natural composition of the relations traversed, and the phrase 'for all time' must normally be added— “Such a conclusion is correct only in the very special case that the target relation between projects and suppliers is, in fact, the natural composition of the other two relations--and we must normally add the phrase "for all time," because this is usually implied in claims concerning path-following techniques” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the claim that a collection of relations can be normalised: the procedure requires the graph of interrelationships of the nonsimple domains to be a collection of trees— “If normalization as described above is to be applicable, the unnormalized collection of relations must satisfy the following conditions: (1) The graph of interrelationships of the nonsimple domains is a collection of trees” | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — the words 'relation' and 'relationship' anywhere after Section 1: the paper states it will not distinguish them except where being explicit is advantageous— “In the remainder of this paper, we shall not bother to distinguish between relations and relationships except where it appears advantageous to be explicit” | limitations[7] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | the range of representation changes achievable without impairing programs is still limited— “which can be changed without logically impairing some application programs is still quite limited” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The paper deliberately excludes any discussion of how systems supporting the model would be implemented.— “Implementations of systems to support the relational model are not discussed.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Further normalisation operations exist but are left out of the paper.— “These are not discussed in this paper.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The proposed data sublanguage is only sketched; neither its linguistic detail nor its implementation is worked out.— “Neither the purely linguistic details of such a language nor the implementation problems are discussed.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Checking consistency requires an instantaneous snapshot of possibly very large, highly variable relations, a practical problem the paper does not address.— “There are practical problems (which we shall not discuss here) in taking an instantaneous snapshot of a collection of relations, some of which may be very large and highly variable.” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | Following a chain of stored connections to answer a question is stated to be erroneous in general; it is valid only when the target relation IS the natural composition of the links, and only if that holds for all time.— “Such a conclusion is correct only in the very special case that the target relation between projects and suppliers is, in fact, the natural composition of the other two relations--and we must normally add the phrase "for all time," because this is usually implied in claims concerning path-following techniques” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The normalisation procedure is stated to apply only when the collection of relations already satisfies stated structural conditions.— “If normalization as described above is to be applicable, the unnormalized collection of relations must satisfy the following conditions: (1) The graph of interrelationships of the nonsimple domains is a collection of trees” | limitations[6] |
| limitation | A distinction the paper draws is then declared not worth maintaining for the rest of the paper.— “In the remainder of this paper, we shall not bother to distinguish between relations and relationships except where it appears advantageous to be explicit” | limitations[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | the relational view appears superior in several respects to the graph or network model— “appears to be superior in several respects to the graph or network model” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | the relational model gives a basis for a high-level data language with maximal independence— “it provides a basis for a high level data language which will yield maximal independence between programs on the one hand and machine representation and organization of data on the other” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | the paper's core problem is data independence— “the problems treated here are those of data independence” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | the relational view forms a sound basis for treating derivability— “forms a sound basis for treating derivability,” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | 3 kinds of dependencies — data dependencies still needing removal— “Three of the principal kinds of data dependencies which still need to be removed” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| variable | n-ary relations (mathematical basis of the model)— “A model based on n-ary relations” | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | data representation (internal form that may change without affecting programs)— “Changes in data representation will often be needed as a result of changes in… | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | application programs (should remain unaffected by representation changes) | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | redundancy and consistency (problems addressed in the user's model) | content_tags.variables[3] |
| definition | relational view (or model) | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | data independence | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | connection trap | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| key-terms | relational model, data independence, relations, normal form, data bank, redundancy, consistency, derivability, data representation, predicate calculus |
| concept | relational model | concepts[0] |
| concept | normalization | concepts[2] |
| concept | data independence | concepts[3] |
| concept | connection trap Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | foreign key Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | primary key Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| claim type | method — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: method Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.claim_type |
| method | formal-model — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: formal-model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.method |
| phenomenon | data independence - insulating application programs from changes in how data is represented — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: data independence in shared data banks Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.phenomenon |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824