Re: The Theoretical Foundations of the Relational Model
Date: 4 Jul 2002 10:50:28 +0200
Message-ID: <3d240c54$1_at_news.uia.ac.be>
In article <3D1BD200.77D91422_at_managesoft.com>,
Clifford Heath <cjh_nospam_at_managesoft.com> wrote:
>
>[...] I really think that ORM offers the least inflexible method for
>capturing conceptual designs and evolving them over time.
Could you explain this a little? I know personally of research that was done on schema evolution in the context of ORM/NIAM, so I am a bit puzzled by your statement.
>What needs to be studied is the methods
>for mapping such fact-based models to physical schemata, in the light of the
>need to evolve a physical schema to reflect conceptual evolution. This
>evolutionary aspect is the most important point of view to take of any
>conceptual->physical mapping strategy.
Why do you think this problem becomes harder/easier when you take RM or ORM. By the way, RM is just a very limited subset of ORM. :-)
- Jan Hidders