Ok, consider me wild, but my reply will be in the form of an unryhmed free verse. Much more artistic ;-)

>Just because a table has an FK, it ain't always a child,
>In a 1-to-1 it may be a daddy, to phrase it very mild.

I know, this was apart of my first post, but, in the DBC under persistant relations (which is what Dore asked), wouldn't the FK = child always be true then?

>And then you have a self-join, where anything can go.
>So tables are not always set in relational positions, you know.

I think in a self join in a DE, since relationships are always between aliases they always would have teh relational positions. But in the DBC, I said there technically isn't aliases so can't have a parent and child. Do you agree?