Re: foundations of relational theory?

I still haven't learnt anything here, that might be just me, but I doubt it.

But I have come to some conclusions.. (And this is not meant to be a troll)

1. MV/PICK is not a data model by any accepted definition.
2. The logical/physical distinction in MV/PICK is unidentifiable.
3. Every time anyone says the word theory, the MV/PICK people say practise, which tends to justify statement 1 & 2.

I would also like to propose the death of the term Non-1NF. This implies that you could have the higher Normal Forms, when obviously this is not the case.

I think the term 0-NF is more adequate.

I am impressed with the passion of MV/PICK proponents and it seems obvious that they really enjoy working with it. And If I can believe you, have managed to meet your customers requirements.

Personally I have learnt to "let go" of any emotional attachment to a product as I know that they will be superseded.

But I am huge advocate of the relational theory of data for 2 valid reasons and 1 selfish reason..

1. It has a general theory that has gone unchallenged for hundreds of years. (Set theory - Georg Cantor 1874, Predicate Logic from Aristotle 322BC to Frege, Peno, Godel and Turing & Church (1936) who prove that it is not "decidable").
2. All computer software has bugs. Lots of them! When I start a project that will have some kind of DBMS, IMO the only choice is to start from "perfection" (no bugs). As far as I am aware, the relational model has no bugs and thus serves as the foundation for a "perfect" logical/business model. To start from anything else is to increase the number of bugs. Of course the actual implementation of the model may not be possible with current products and can/will cause bugs, but they should be fairly easy to spot.
3. Nobody has implemented it properly, although Alphora have had a great stab, and this gives me hope that I could be the one who does and consequently make Larry Ellisons bank balance look like small change..;-)

--
Posted via http://dbforums.com