f



Meaning of 1:1, 1:1 generalization, 1:n, 1:n non identifying, n:m

Hi All,

I've been taking a look at DB Designer 4, and looking through the
documentation (http://www.fabforce.net/dbdesigner4/doc/index.html) I am a
little unclear on some of their nomenclature:

'1:1' - Ok, one to one.  Got it.
'1:1 generalization' - Don't know this.  Obviously different somehow from
one to one, but how?
'1:n' - One to many, I assume.
'1:n non identifying' - Nonidentifying?  What does this mean?
'n:m' - Many to many?  Again, not sure.

Can anyone help clarify?

Thanks!
  -Josh 


0
Joshua
9/30/2004 9:30:31 PM
comp.databases 3839 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

7 Replies
1057 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

Joshua Beall wrote:

> I've been taking a look at DB Designer 4, and looking through the
> documentation (http://www.fabforce.net/dbdesigner4/doc/index.html) I am a
> little unclear on some of their nomenclature:
> 
> '1:1' - Ok, one to one.  Got it.
> '1:1 generalization' - Don't know this.  Obviously different somehow from
> one to one, but how?
> '1:n' - One to many, I assume.
> '1:n non identifying' - Nonidentifying?  What does this mean?
> 'n:m' - Many to many?  Again, not sure.
> 
> Can anyone help clarify?

Your question boils down to:
"What do these mean in the context of that product".
There are forums at the vendors website.
Your chances of getting an answer are much better there.
0
mAsterdam
10/1/2004 10:52:17 AM
"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam@vrijdag.org> wrote in message 
news:415d36e5$0$43451$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Joshua Beall wrote:
>> I've been taking a look at DB Designer 4,, and looking through the
>> documentation (http://www.fabforce.net/dbdesigner4/doc/index.html) I am a
>> little unclear on some of their nomenclature:
>>
>> '1:1' - Ok, one to one.  Got it.
>> '1:1 generalization' - Don't know this.  Obviously different somehow from
>> one to one, but how?
>> '1:n' - One to many, I assume.
>> '1:n non identifying' - Nonidentifying?  What does this mean?
>> 'n:m' - Many to many?  Again, not sure.
>
> Your question boils down to:
> "What do these mean in the context of that product".
> There are forums at the vendors website.
> Your chances of getting an answer are much better there.

I actually did post to their forums, but from the way it is talked about in 
the documentation, I got the idea that these terms are general database 
terms that you should understand *before* using their product.  This is why 
they don't bother to explain them, they just say "the common relationships 
(insert list) can be accessed via these buttons."  I have looked through the 
documentation and was not able to find any further description of these 
terms.

And nobody on their forums has responded yet.  It's only been about 12 
hours, though.

  -Josh 


0
Joshua
10/1/2004 12:14:17 PM
Joshua Beall wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote: 
>>>Joshua Beall wrote:
>>>... nomenclature:
>>>
>>>'1:1' - Ok, one to one.  Got it.
>>>'1:1 generalization' - Don't know this.  Obviously different somehow from
>>>one to one, but how?

I guess this is the  1/0:1, see below.

>>>'1:n' - One to many, I assume.
I guess this is the codependent 1:m, see below.

>>>'1:n non identifying' - Nonidentifying?  What does this mean?

The foreign key is not part of the child key.
IOW the key of the child does not include
identification of the parent.

>>>'n:m' - Many to many?  Again, not sure.
>>
....
> I actually did post to their forums, but from the way it is talked about in 
> the documentation, I got the idea that these terms are general database 
> terms that you should understand *before* using their product.  This is why 
> they don't bother to explain them, they just say "the common relationships 
> (insert list) can be accessed via these buttons."  I have looked through the 
> documentation and was not able to find any further description of these 
> terms.

I'll try to help make your guess an educated
one, I apologize it is somewhat lengthy.

"one to many" (1:m), "many to many" (m:n) are ways to express
an aspect of how data relate. I don't know where these popped
up, but they are pre-CODASYL. It has something to do with
cardinality. Attempts to formalize this aspect have been
incorporated in ER (Entity-Relationship) and ORM
(Object Role Modeling).
Both are used in the pre-design stage.

Some call the design of
the database when there is a ER or ORM to start
with a "translation" (from the "logical" to the
"physical", but I don't think there is anything
physical about tables).

Because some of the possible cardinalities are not at
all consequential for the functional dependencies in
the actual SQL-database design and others
do not have enough information on how to implement
them, some dismiss these (as pseudo-)formalisms and
start with the table design right away. TIMTOWTDI:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThereIsMoreThanOneWayToDoIt

Here is one way to look at this:

Relationship AB:
      +---+    AB - name                +---+
      | A |-cAB---------------------cBA-| B |
      +---+                BA - name    +---+

max/min:min/max

A, B are entities
c is the cardinality:  min is in [0,1] max is in [1, m]


These are the possibilities:

          (max min)               (min max)
[one to one]
           --|0----------------------0|--
1/0:0/1   for every A there is at most one related B,
           for every B there is at most one related A
non-dependent

           --||----------------------||--
1/1:1/1   for every A there must be exactly one related B,
           for every B there must be exactly one related A
co-dependent

           --|0----------------------||--
1/0:1/1   for every A there must be a related B,
           for every B there is at most one related A
A is (existentially) dependent on B



[many to one]
           -->0----------------------0|--
m/0:0/1   for every A there is at most one related B,
           for a B there may be related A's
non-dependent

           -->0----------------------||--
m/1:1/1   for every A there must be a related B,
           for every B there is at least one related A
co-dependent

           -->0----------------------||--
m/0:1/1   for every A there must be a related B
A is dependent on B



[many to many]
           -->0----------------------0<--
m/0:0/m   no existence dependency
non-dependent

           -->1----------------------1<--
m/1:1/m   for every A there is at least one related B
           for every B there is at least one related A
co-dependent

           -->1----------------------1<--
m/0:1/m   for every A there is at least one related B
A is dependent on B


m/x:x/m, many to many or m:n relationships will be split into
two relationships AJ and JA.

The non-dependent ones aren't interesting.

Trying to get the remaining co-dependent ones right
may lead to counterproductive discussions about nothing
relevant to the database design.
Don't bother. Just label them "maybe problematic",
and solve the real problems (they appear later, at
design time) with adequate domain knowledge.

That leaves just two types of dependencies as
relevant, 1/0:1/1, and m/0:1/1.

In 1/0:1/1 A may be a specialization of B,
B a generalization of A.


HTH

0
mAsterdam
10/1/2004 6:12:32 PM
Joshua Beall wrote:
 > mAsterdam wrote:
 >>> Joshua Beall wrote:
 >>> ... nomenclature:
 >>>
 >>> '1:1' - Ok, one to one.  Got it.
 >>> '1:1 generalization' - Don't know this.
 >>> Obviously different somehow from
 >>> one to one, but how?

I guess this is one to zero or one.

 >>> '1:n' - One to many, I assume.
 >>> '1:n non identifying' - Nonidentifying?  What does this mean?

The foreign key is not part of the child key.
IOW the key of the child does not include
identification of the parent.

 >>> 'n:m' - Many to many?  Again, not sure.
> ... I actually did post to their forums, but from the way it is
> talked about in the documentation, I got the idea that these
> terms are general database terms that you should understand
> *before* using their product.  This is why they don't bother
> to explain them, they just say "the common relationships 
> (insert list) can be accessed via these buttons."  
> I have looked through the documentation and was not able to
> find any further description of these terms.

"one to many" (1:m), "many to many" (m:n) are ways
to express an aspect of how data relate.
I don't know where these popped up, but they are
pre-CODASYL. It has something to do with
cardinality. Attempts to formalize this
aspect have been incorporated in ER
(Entity-Relationship) and ORM
(Object Role Modeling).
Both are used in the pre-design stage.

Some call the design of the database when
there is a ER or ORM to start with a
"translation" (from the "logical" to the
"physical", but I don't think there is
anything physical about tables).

Because some of the possible cardinalities are not
at all consequential for the functional
dependencies in the actual SQL-database design and
others do not have enough information on how to
implement them, some dismiss these (as pseudo-)formalisms
They start with the table design right away.

Down's law: "People understand tables just fine."

Very recent discovery ;-)

TIMTOWTDI:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThereIsMoreThanOneWayToDoIt

Here is one way to look at these cardinalities:

Association (Relationship) AB:
      +---+    AB - name                +---+
      | A |-cAB---------------------cBA-| B |
      +---+                BA - name    +---+


A, B are entities
cAB is the cardinality minimum and maximum:
min is in [0,1] max is in [1, m]

e.g.:
          A -->0----------------1<-- B
m/0:1/m
for every A there is at least one B
A is dependent on B

Many to many (m:n) relationships/associations
will be split into two: AJ and JB. (J for Junction)

Trying to get the associations
with the same minimum on both sides
right is a pain and does nothing
to help the database design.

Don't bother. Just label them "maybe problematic",
and only solve the problems which are still there
when you get there (they appear later, at
design time) with adequate domain knowledge.

That leaves just three types of dependencies as
relevant, 1/0:1/1, m/0:1/1 (identifying) and m/1:0/1
(non-identifying).

In 1/0:1/1 A may be a specialization of B,
B a generalization of A.

HTH


0
mAsterdam
10/1/2004 8:41:07 PM
Joshua Beall wrote:
 > mAsterdam wrote:
 >>> Joshua Beall wrote:
 >>> ... nomenclature:
 >>>
 >>> '1:1' - Ok, one to one.  Got it.
 >>> '1:1 generalization' - Don't know this.
 >>> Obviously different somehow from
 >>> one to one, but how?

I guess this is one to zero or one.

 >>> '1:n' - One to many, I assume.
 >>> '1:n non identifying' - Nonidentifying?  What does this mean?

The foreign key is not part of the child key.
IOW the key of the child does not include
identification of the parent.

 >>> 'n:m' - Many to many?  Again, not sure.

 > ... I actually did post to their forums, but from the way it is
 > talked about in the documentation, I got the idea that these
 > terms are general database terms that you should understand
 > *before* using their product.  This is why they don't bother
 > to explain them, they just say "the common relationships (insert 
list) can be accessed via these buttons."  I have looked through the 
documentation and was not able to
 > find any further description of these terms.


"one to many" (1:m), "many to many" (m:n) are ways
to express an aspect of how data relate.
I don't know where these popped up, but they are
pre-CODASYL. It has something to do with
cardinality. Attempts to formalize this
aspect have been incorporated in ER
(Entity-Relationship) and ORM
(Object Role Modeling).
Both are used in the pre-design stage.

Some call the design of the database when
there is a ER or ORM to start with a
"translation" (from the "logical" to the
"physical", but I don't think there is
anything physical about tables).

Because some of the possible cardinalities are not
at all consequential for the functional
dependencies in the actual SQL-database design and
others do not have enough information on how to
implement them, some dismiss these (as pseudo-)formalisms
They start with the table design right away.

Downs' law: "People understand tables just fine."

Very recent discovery ;-)

TIMTOWTDI:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThereIsMoreThanOneWayToDoIt

Here is one way to look at these cardinalities:

Association (Relationship) AB:
      +---+    AB - name                +---+
      | A |-cAB---------------------cBA-| B |
      +---+                BA - name    +---+


A, B are entities
cAB is the cardinality minimum and maximum:
min is in [0,1] max is in [1, m]

e.g.:
          A -->0----------------1<-- B
m/0:1/m
for every A there is at least one B
A is dependent on B

Many to many (m:n) relationships/associations
will be split into two: AJ and JB. (J for Junction)

Trying to get the associations
with the same minimum on both sides
right is a pain and does nothing
to help the database design.

Don't bother. Just label them "maybe problematic",
and only solve the problems which are still there
when you get there (they appear later, at
design time) with adequate domain knowledge.

That leaves just three types of dependencies as
relevant, 1/0:1/1, m/0:1/1 (identifying) and m/1:0/1
(non-identifying).

In 1/0:1/1 A may be a specialization of B,
B a generalization of A.

HTH

0
mAsterdam
10/1/2004 8:42:13 PM
Joshua Beall wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> I've been taking a look at DB Designer 4, and looking through the
> documentation (http://www.fabforce.net/dbdesigner4/doc/index.html) I am a
> little unclear on some of their nomenclature:
> 
> '1:1' - Ok, one to one.  Got it.
> '1:1 generalization' - Don't know this.  Obviously different somehow from
> one to one, but how?
> '1:n' - One to many, I assume.
> '1:n non identifying' - Nonidentifying?  What does this mean?
> 'n:m' - Many to many?  Again, not sure.
> 
> Can anyone help clarify?
> 
> Thanks!
>   -Josh 
> 
> 
Sorry I cant help drectly, but I would give a small warning to beware of 
DB Designer 4...

It looks like a fabulous product, but there is a very bad bug in it: if 
you add then remove a relationship between tables it will destroy the 
the related key field in the 'destination' table.

I would debug and rebuild it myself, but I gave up on Delphi a few years 
ago and don't think I can be bothered to port it to Freepascal/Lazarus.

Mike
0
2metre
10/13/2004 11:02:41 AM
"2metre" <2metre@xxxhersham.net> wrote in message 
news:ckj20h$6sp$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Sorry I cant help drectly, but I would give a small warning to beware of 
> DB Designer 4...
>
> It looks like a fabulous product, but there is a very bad bug in it: if 
> you add then remove a relationship between tables it will destroy the the 
> related key field in the 'destination' table.

I actually discovered this - very annoying!  Got suggestions for an 
alternative product? 


0
Joshua
10/14/2004 1:36:01 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

1 - 1, 1 -1, 1-1, 1
Hi, I have a question regarding lexical analysis. I recently came across a bug in our lexical analyser in phc (www.phpcompiler.org), that I am unsure how to solve. This is the problem: our current definition for integer constant looks something like INT ([1-9][0-9]*)|0 In particular, note that it does not allow for an (optional) "+" or "-" at the start of the integer. This means that the strings "1 - 1", "1 -1" and "1-1" all generate the same sequence of three tokens INT(1), OP(-), INT(1), for which the syntax analyser generates the subtr...

1.1.1.1 ?
hi my firewall logs dropped packets from an internal IP address trying to contact 1.1.1.1 through port 9999. Any ideas whether 1.1.1.1 is valid IP? and what is port 9999?? thanks mike wrote: > hi > > my firewall logs dropped packets from an internal IP address trying to > contact 1.1.1.1 through port 9999. Any ideas whether 1.1.1.1 is valid > IP? and what is port 9999?? > thanks These trojans *BlitzNet*, *Backdoor.Oracle*, *Backdoor.Spadeace* uses port 9999 -- S.S. "StarScripter" <Star@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<bv8ejj$p54t3$1@ID-185702.new...

[1 1 1 1 1 ;2 2 2 2 2 ;3 3 3 3 3 3;....;n n n n n]
Hi, Anybody knows how to create this matrix but without using any loops? a=[1 1 1 1 1 ;2 2 2 2 2 ;3 3 3 3 3 ;.......;n n n n n ] Thank you. Hana. Hana wrote: > Hi, > Anybody knows how to create this matrix but without using any loops? > a=[1 1 1 1 1 ;2 2 2 2 2 ;3 3 3 3 3 ;.......;n n n n n ] HELP REPMAT - Randy Hana wrote: > > > Hi, > Anybody knows how to create this matrix but without using any > loops? > a=[1 1 1 1 1 ;2 2 2 2 2 ;3 3 3 3 3 ;.......;n n n n n ] > > Thank you. > Hana. Hope this isn't homework. >> repmat([1:n]'...

plot 1, -1, 1, -1, -1
Hi, How to plot those numbers in a rectangle style? thanks x = linspace(-4*pi,4*pi,1000); y = sin(x); plot(x,sign(y)), axis([-12 12 -2 2]) PZ <patrick.zou@gmail.com> wrote in message <d64c545f-f2ac-4f87-af89-051bda896707@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>... > Hi, > > How to plot those numbers in a rectangle style? > > thanks help stairs stairs([-1 1 -1 1 -1 1]) hth Jos ...

#1 #n+1 #2n+1 #2 #n+2 #2n+2 #3 #n+3 #2n+3 #n #2n #3n #1 #2 #3 #n #n+1 #n+2 #n+3 #2n #2n+1 100 Gbps aggregate stream of 64/66b words virtual lane markers virtual lane 1 virtual lane 2 virtual lan
#1 #n+1 #2n+1 #2 #n+2 #2n+2 #3 #n+3 #2n+3 #n #2n #3n #1 #2 #3 #n #n+1 #n+2 #n+3 #2n #2n+1 100 Gbps aggregate stream of 64/66b words virtual lane markers virtual lane 1 virtual lane 2 virtual lane 3 virtual lane n Simple 66-bit word level round robin distribution Transmit PM Transmit PM Receive PM Receive PM Transmit PC Receive PC 1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.1 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 1...

-n (1 + n) + (1 + n) (2 + n)
in: http://:{(n + 1 )*(n + 2)} - {n (n + 1)} out:: .{-n (1 + n) + (1 + n) (2 + n)} In[1]:= 1*2 Out[1]= 2 In[2]:= 2*3 Out[2]= 6 In[3]:= 6 - 2 In[4]:= 4 - 1 In[5]:= FactorInteger[3] Out[5]= {{3, 1}} In[6]:= 2*3 Out[6]= 6 In[7]:= 3*4 Out[7]= 12 In[8]:= 12 - 6 In[9]:= 6 - 1 Out[9]= 5 In[10]:= 3*4 Out[10]= 12 In[11]:= 4*5 Out[11]= 20 In[12]:= 20 - 12 In[13]:= 8 - 1 In[22]:= FactorInteger[7] Out[22]= {{7, 1}} In[14]:= 4*5 Out[14]= 20 In[15]:= 5*6 Out[15]= 30 In[16]:= 30 - 20 In[63]:= FactorInteger[10] Out[63]= {{2, 1}, {5, 1}} In[18]:= 5*6 Out[18]= 30 In[19]:= 6*7 O...

Notation: R(a,k) denotes the rising factorial a(a+1)...(a+k-1 ...the certificate being 2 2 2 (5 m - 12 m p - 2 m + 8 p + 3 n m - n
Notation: R(a,k) denotes the rising factorial a(a+1)...(a+k-1 ...the certificate being 2 2 2 (5 m - 12 m p - 2 m + 8 p + 3 n m - n - 4 n p + 1 + 4 p) n -------------------------------------------------------------, QED . ... Musatov ...

Transform algorithm 1-n, n-1 or m-n
Hi! Often, I have some situations when I have to convert a vector of 10 elements to a vector of 30 elements or vice-versa. (the ratio is 1-3) I want to use the std::transform do to these tasks, but I end up using std::for_each Is a special/custom iterator the only way to do that with std::transform? Example: vector<int> source, destiny; .... now source has 30 elements destiny.resize(10); transform(source.begin(),source.end(),destiny.begin(),ThreeToOneConverter()); ** how to write the ThreeToOneConverter functor in order to process and skip three elements at a time instead of one...

NSum[(-1)^n*(n^(1/n)-a),{n,Infinity}] and the like
Ideally I would like to see someone explain why I get the following results they might also be of interest to others. For all a, x, and y Mathematica gives the following where c is the constant given by the convergent series c=NSum[(-1)^n*(n^(1/n)-1),{n,Infinity}] = 0.18785964246206... = the MRB constant. Regularization is used so sums that formally diverge return a result that can be interpreted as evaluation of the analytic extension of the series: NSum[(-1)^n*(n^(1/n)-a),{n,Infinity}] gives c-1/2*(1-a). NSum[(-1)^n*(x*n^(1/n)+y*n),{n,Infinity}] gives (c-1/2)*x-1/4*y. NSum[(-1...

-1%N = -1
Does anyone know why the remainder and the division operations are incorrect with negative numbers in C++? Is it about assembly? OuFeRRaT -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] OuFeRRaT schrieb: > Does anyone know why the remainder and the division operations are > incorrect with negative numbers in C++? Is it about assembly? In how far is this incorrect? The modulo operation and division must be defined such that (x/n) * n + (x % n) = x (1) holds, and this should be true (-1 / N =...

i=infinity;0= i*sin k*pi, 1=cos k*pi, k=m/n, n=4,m=0-00; c*G=20=const, 1/sgrt2>G>0.5, 6<N = NA ^2surf/NAvol<7 ; h/N =11=const, e+i*pi; D universe =f(h)*1/ (a))^4, T=f( m, S, D)
I sincerely hope You will read the text bellow, get intrigued and discuss with some of Your colleagues. I have a feeling Your INTUITION will not allow You just to dismiss my thoughts in a trash bin. What if I give up? Please for give the messy form - form represents content, messy form allows to represent a developing idea. Rigid form can only represent dead , already solved idea- why would You want to see that? Best regards, Ivars Fabriciuss Dear Friends, 0 has infinity potential dimensions all of whom has potential to materialize -it encompasses the beginning of everything;when used...

i=infinity;0= i*sin k*pi, 1=cos k*pi, k=m/n, n=4,m=0-00; c*G=20=const, 1/sgrt2>G>0.5, 6<N = NA ^2surf/NAvol<7 ; h/N =11=const, e+i*pi; D universe =f(h)*1/ (a))^4, T=f( m, S, D)
Please give me a direction - am I totally lost in my own world and have spent 6 months in vain trying to figure this out, or is there a fruit of truth hidden somewhere? Excuse me for rapid end of some sentences and chaotic appearance of equations- i am just tired. I have spent 1 month practically thinking only about 1 thing. I need some rest and support. On other hand, this chaotically ordered text is good as it will cause confusion and will stretch imagination:) Approximately 50% of the following text is obviously right > 37,5%-is subjective <12,5%- optional Approximately 50% of peop...

ERROR IN EXPRESSION; -1 - (-1) not 1
The expression isn't a = 1 - (1-), but: a = -1 - (1) der <der@noemail.com> scribbled the following: > The expression isn't a = 1 - (1-), but: a = -1 - (1) Ah, that's different, then. Then the answer is: The result will be -2. You have *no* guarantees about which of -1 or (1) is evaluated first, but as they don't have side effects, you don't have to care. -- /-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\ | Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++| | http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ ...

Alignment of foo[1][1][1][1]
Suppose I have type 'foo' and: sizeof (foo) == 16 alignof (foo) == 2 Suppose I have type 'foo[1][1][1][1]' and: sizeof (foo[1][1][1][1]) == 16 Can: alignof (foo[1][1][1][1]) == 4 ? I'd like to think not, but is it prohibited? If I do: typedef foo bar[1][1][1][1]; bar * my_bar = malloc(sizeof *bar); foo * my_foo = (foo *) my_bar; certainly 'my_bar' points to an object whose alignment satisfies type 'foo'. But what about the other way around? typedef foo bar[1][1][1][1]; foo * my_foo = malloc(sizeof *foo); bar * my_ba...

Web resources about - Meaning of 1:1, 1:1 generalization, 1:n, 1:n non identifying, n:m - comp.databases

Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is, after two starting values, each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. The Fibonacci sequence has been studied extensively ...

A further generalization
... renal disease and Medicare paying for his dialysis. Andrew makes a specific point that I want to generalize a bit more: To hazard a generalization, ...

Oo, Snap! Juan Cole Reminds Gingrich Just Who's Making Broad Generalizations
Oh, Ahnult. Don't ever change. Ever . (Yeah, I know he's a Republican, and he didn't turn out to be a good governor. But he still tickles me ...

Understanding an alien intelligence: Generalizations from the crow
The crow and its larger cousin the raven are universally held as avian geniuses, chess champions among birds. A recent study in Nature takes ...

Stop The False Generalizations About Personalized Learning
In March, Tom Loveless, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, took an outdated swipe at the logic behind moving toward a student-centered learning ...

Breezy, Probably Unfair Generalizations About Panama Based On An Hour At Tocumen International Airport ...
Writers are famous for blowing into places for a very short period of time and then spouting off on them as though they were experts.

NYT Public Editor: ‘Generalization and anecdote’ in Amazon exposé ‘doesn’t seem like quite enough’
The New York Times’ investigation into Amazon’s allegedly “bruising” culture is quickly becoming one of the newspaper’s most talked about stories ...

'Black Women Who Look Like Me Aren't Lesbians' Politician Apologizes for Making Idiotic Generalization ...
Florida's now-infamous lieutenant governor, Jennifer Carroll, has apologized after suggesting last week that women who look the way she does, ...

A Manhattan Subway Map Based on Judgmental Generalizations About New York City Neighborhoods
Travel site Thrillist has created a subway map of Manhattan based on judgmental generalizations about what goes on in various neighborhoods in ...

The Bachelor’s Juan Pablo Galavis Makes New Generalization About Gays in Apology for ‘Pervert’ Remark ...
... context.” Galavis also attributed the supposed miscommunication to the fact that English is not his first language and made an additional generalization ...

Resources last updated: 2/12/2016 1:02:49 PM