Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO)

Hannu Krosing wrote:

> it would be hard to define RI by just saying that some field references "an
> OID",
> often you want to be able do define something more specific.
> 
> It would be too much for most users to require that all primary and foreign
> keys
> must be of type OID.

Since it would be object and relational, you could do either. But all
pure object databases _always_ rely on oid to define relationships, and
that is likely to be all an ODMG inteface would support. Unless we want
to break new ground anyway.