Re: The Practical Benefits of the Relational Model
From: Finarfin <finarfin_at_sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 19:09:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4n3o9.2861$9f2.170132_at_news20.bellglobal.com>
>
> Well, let's look at it this way:
>
> Nobody has the exclusive right to whatever
> "relational database management system" means.
> Maybe Oracle, DB2 and SQLServer are decent
> RDBMS's and there is no need to strive for
> something more.
>
> Maybe Codd is right in his V2-book.
>
> Maybe Stonebraker got it right...
>
> Maybe implementing the full SQL1999 standard
> is the holy grail.
>
> Who knows - maybe the OO-guys were right after all...
>
> Date and Darwen have stated there opinion of
> what an RDBMS should be like in
> The Third Manifesto and other books (Selected
> Writings etc...)
>
> Whatever we may think of what they are saying
> we now have A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY SEE IF WHAT
> THEY PROPOSE IS USEFULL, because the guys
> in Alpora have MORE OR LESS FAITHFULLY
> IMPLEMENTED IT (take or leave a few items).
>
> So you can take TTM in your left hand and
> Dataphor in your right hand and see for your
> self if Alphora
> - conforms to TTM
> - is usefull
>
> Instead of looking at a drawing of a bicycle
> and debating whether it is possible to
> ride such a thing we can ACTUALLY TRY IT OUT in
> practice.
>
> Let me add that I would be happy with ANY implementation
> of TTM.
>
> It is just that to my knowledge
> Dataphor is the only one at the moment.
>
> Lauri Pietarinen
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 19:09:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4n3o9.2861$9f2.170132_at_news20.bellglobal.com>
Lauri Pietarinen wrote:
>> It is often emphasized how beatuful relational theory is, because >> it is based on the set theory. While there is undoubtedly some >> connections, but may I ask why set union is a basic relational >> operator, and intersection is not? (Intersection could be expressed >> via combination of join and projection).
>
> Well, let's look at it this way:
>
> Nobody has the exclusive right to whatever
> "relational database management system" means.
> Maybe Oracle, DB2 and SQLServer are decent
> RDBMS's and there is no need to strive for
> something more.
>
> Maybe Codd is right in his V2-book.
>
> Maybe Stonebraker got it right...
>
> Maybe implementing the full SQL1999 standard
> is the holy grail.
>
> Who knows - maybe the OO-guys were right after all...
>
> Date and Darwen have stated there opinion of
> what an RDBMS should be like in
> The Third Manifesto and other books (Selected
> Writings etc...)
>
> Whatever we may think of what they are saying
> we now have A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY SEE IF WHAT
> THEY PROPOSE IS USEFULL, because the guys
> in Alpora have MORE OR LESS FAITHFULLY
> IMPLEMENTED IT (take or leave a few items).
>
> So you can take TTM in your left hand and
> Dataphor in your right hand and see for your
> self if Alphora
> - conforms to TTM
> - is usefull
>
> Instead of looking at a drawing of a bicycle
> and debating whether it is possible to
> ride such a thing we can ACTUALLY TRY IT OUT in
> practice.
>
> Let me add that I would be happy with ANY implementation
> of TTM.
>
> It is just that to my knowledge
> Dataphor is the only one at the moment.
>
> Lauri Pietarinen
Sadly, it only runs on Windows. If one is running servers on Solaris, QNX or some other variant, it is not useable nor does it look portable either as it is a .net thing.
John Eggert Received on Mon Oct 07 2002 - 01:09:20 CEST