Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

"mikepreece" <member31023_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message news:3522007.1067049957_at_dbforums.com...
>
> Originally posted by Jan Hidders
>
> > Lee Fesperman wrote:
>
> > > Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> > >>Correct. There's absolutely no reason to believe that you cannot
> > have
>
> > >>data independence with logical pointer or references. I would
> > however
>
> > >>argue that allowing entities without representable keys is not a
> > good idea.
>
> > >
>
> > > Incorrect. Even though you call them 'logical' pointers, they
> > are
>
> > > still physical artifacts and have no place in a truly logical
> > view of
>
> > > the database.
>
> >
>
> > Logical pointers can be defined at the logical level and
> > implemented in
>
> > various ways. They are just as much physical artifacts as, say,
>
> > relations are.
>
> >
>
> > > Databases are about
>
> > > data, and pointers are not data (or meta-data).
>
> >
>
> > They carry information. That makes them data. I see no good reason to
>
> > use a more restrictive definition.
>
> >
>
> > -- Jan Hidders
>
>
>
> Pointers need not exist for data to be stored/retrieved in/from a
> database with their relationships intact. The relationships between
> data can exist without any physical representation at all beyond their
> proximity to each other.

Um, what is more physical than physical juxtaposition? Do you even understand the concept? It is a rather concrete concept. Received on Sat Oct 25 2003 - 16:22:07 CEST