Relational terminology check — are table rows ever called “fields”?\nDecide whether the claim “In a relation, the rows are sometimes called fields” is correct or incorrect. Use standard database terminology: row/tuple vs column/attribute/field.

Introduction / Context:
Clear terminology is essential in database design and SQL. Misnaming common concepts such as rows and columns leads to confusion in requirements, schema design, and query writing. This question tests whether calling rows “fields” is acceptable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A “relation” is represented as a two-dimensional table.
• A row corresponds to a tuple (a single record instance).
• A column corresponds to an attribute; in many tools, a “field” commonly refers to a column or a single data item within a row/column intersection.

Concept / Approach:
In the relational model: rows = tuples (records), columns = attributes. The term “field” informally denotes either a column or, in some contexts, a single data item value at the intersection of a row and a column. It does not denote an entire row. Therefore, the statement that rows are fields is incorrect by standard usage.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Look at SQL syntax: INSERT adds a row (tuple); ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN adds an attribute (field). The operations and documentation consistently differentiate rows and columns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Correct — rows are fields” reverses the accepted definitions.
• “Correct only in hierarchical databases” and “Correct only in spreadsheets” are irrelevant; the question is about relations (relational model).
• “Depends on vendor” is misleading: while documentation wording varies, the accepted model does not equate rows with fields.

Common Pitfalls:
Using “field” for both a column and a cell; carrying spreadsheet vocabulary to relational database discourse.

Final Answer:
Incorrect — rows are tuples or records; fields are columns