In article <gcico01uvomgr6su4583o7u4v795tjdac4@4ax.com>,
nospam@nospam.nospam says...
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 11:43:38 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <s1ubo0598nmheb2k8udg65djjj5032ipfv@4ax.com>,
> >nospam@nospam.nospam says...
> >> I'm looking for a term that could apply to an arbitrarily complex set of
> >> items, possibly with relationships among them, but all restricted by
> >> relationship to a single key value somewhere.
> >
> >It's called a one to many relationship.
> >
> >1 record relates to many sub-records in another table by key.
>
> Not quite. 1-m relationship does not include the idea that we're only talking
> about a group of records related to a single ancestor, nor the fact that if a
> record is reachable by more than one 1-m path such as a junction between
> descendents, that those must share the single starting ancestor record .

you're thinking at the wrong level - you just described a 1-M
relationship. Your fault is in thinking too low in the tree. you can
have any number of 1-m relationships with each other.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)