Re: foundations of relational theory?

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:MDomb.23527$HS4.91636_at_attbi_s01...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_iserv.net> wrote in message
news:6db906b2.0310221139.207ddeb0_at_posting.google.com...
> >
> > My reason for suggesting that an RDBMS with added relations within
> > relations would be less agile is due to the whole issue of how/where
> > one encodes constraints.
>
> One thing this thread has gotten me thinking about is the agility
question.

Agility is just another word for logical independence. Pick lacks it.

> > I actually think we agree on much of this, but with me coming down to
> > using a language like Java for all typing/constraints and you having a
> > not-yet-established or proprietary language in mind.

There is nothing proprietary about D.

> A declarative language would be better than a procedural one
> such as Java. Java does have an advantage in a large installed
> base, though.
>
>
> > It sounds like we both have as a tactic to get the entire "system"
> > (all applications) in a single language.
>
> I'm against that idea. It strikes me as requirement for
> marketplace acceptance, if nothing else, that it be possible
> to write applications in any of various languages.
>
> Paul has some ideas that I don't think I understand
> about applications being unnecessary, or something.
>
>
> > I'd be more content to have my experience and theory align and one
> > tact I'm taking with that is to examine the relational theory and see
> > where there are holes.

Those holes are obvious and already well-documented. I suggest Dawn simply read some of the existing literature. At the same time, Pick is a thread-bare patchwork of shredded rags, and yet Dawn doesn't seem to see the importance in looking at the holes there.

> > The biggest one I've found is the statement
> > about how we wouldn't want to make the mathematics of data persistence
> > less simple than relations -- that is a religious statement, not a
> > mathematical one, so that is what I'm tackling first.

When Dawn achieves the stated goal, Dawn will have fundamentally changed our understanding of logic and mathematics. It would be a revolutionary achievement in mathematics, and I encourage her to pursue the goal. I suggest she have realistic expectations about reaching the goal in order to avoid disappointment.

[lots of "you can use" statements snipped]

> Relations look like the clear winner to me.

One might use some as yet unidentified structure. Dawn wants to contribute something as important as any contribution by Aristotle, Boole or Goedel. She is welcome to try. I have already expressed my opinion regarding my perceptions of her ability to succeed. Received on Sat Oct 25 2003 - 15:45:13 CEST