Re: Do Data Models Need to built on a Mathematical Concept?

> The ultimate data representation then is binary code,
> which can represent everything. But how useful is it?

I would not agree that binary code is the ultimate method of data representation although it may be involved in particular implementations. To me the brain's flexible capabilities is not largely due to binary codes, but rather the ability to relate the representation of anything with the representation of any other thing, if required.

> But I guess what this boils down to is that you have this system where
> everything can be related to everything, and you say that this is how the
> brain works to give it credibility, because the brain is after all an
> incredibly advanced thing.

Not exactly, I am only noting the flexibility of the brain and that we can't achieve it with the current relational data model. I am suggesting there must be a better.

> But the real issue here then is whether one can really benefit from being
> able to relate everything to everything else, regardless of whether this is
> how the brain works or not. And it is my opinion that one cannot.

I respectfully disagree and say that the ability to related the representation of anything to the representation of any other thing, if needed, is of supreme importance.

> So let me put it this way: until you can show some real world examples where
> your data model is better than the relational (which I believe is the
> best), I'm not going to be convinced.

I have not proposed any specific data model better than the relational data model anywhere in this thread. People are not ready for it, yet :) Received on Thu May 08 2003 - 05:36:52 CEST