Re: Is relational theory incomplete?

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:YM2dnRY7sulDazKiRVn-gg_at_golden.net...
> "Tom Hester" <tom_at_metadata.com> wrote in message
> news:a033$3fafe73a$45033832$30156_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> > Yes, I am very familiar with the catalogs. Compared to other, more
> > semantically rich data models
>
> A catalog is a catalog and not a data model. To make any sense of the
above,
> I must assume you postulate a data model that is semantically richer than
> the relational model.
I don't postulate one. Many exist.
Name one data model that is as semantically rich as
> the relational model--let alone richer.
Any CAD database data model. InterDB, any number of others.
>
>
> >, the catalogs represent a very sparse amount
> > of metadata. There is for example little or no information on domains
and
> > how these domains inter-relate.
>
> If a dbms fails to support domains or if a dbms does not describe domains
> using values in relations, the dbms suffers from significant relational
> infidelity. It strikes me as perverse and misleading to criticize the
> relational model for that product's lack of relational fidelity. Your
> assertion that the relational model prevents adequate metadata is plainly
> wrong and exhibits profound ignorance of the fundamentals of data
Your god is dead!
> management.

I would be offended if I thought you had a clue about what you are talking about.
>
>
> > You apparently misread my original reply. I infact said that Gödel did
not
> > invalidate the relational model.
>
> Yes, I know that. However, I doubt anyone reading your reply would gain
any
> useful information from it. The relational model is as incomplete as every
> other consistent formalism, which is to say some information external to
the
This is pure BS.
> formalism exists. This is equivalent to saying that some part of the
> conceptual model extends beyond the logical model--nothing more and
nothing
> less.
>
>
> > You identify intension with conceptual.
>
> As relates to computing, the conceptual level of discourse encompasses all
> information as understood by human beings where the logical level of
You don't know what intension means do you?
> discourse encompasses only data represented appropriately for processing
or
> for communicating. You do not have to take my word for this: You can
verify
> it using the ISO/IEC Standard Vocabulary for Information Technology
(ISO/IEC
> 2382-17).
>
> I equate the information external to any consistent formalism with the
> information at the conceptual level that is not represented for
> communicating or for processing as I see the formalism as the appropriate
> representation for communicating or for processing. The relational model
is
> a consistent formalism which necessarily means it is incomplete; however,
> the incompleteness is irrelevant to the issue whether the relational model
> is useful for data management.
>
> Given a choice between incomplete and inconsistent, which is the choice
> Goedel proved one cannot avoid, I will choose incomplete any day for a
> formal data model, because external information will always exist in any
> case. Whereas inconsistency will render the logical data model unreliable
> and incomprehensible.
>
>
> > That is a great leap and one that
> > many analytical philosophers would not agree with. See Montague for
> example,
> > who proposes that it concepts are extensions.
>
> I suggest the above argument would have greater relevance in
> comp.math.philosophy where perhaps they use a slightly different standard
> vocabulary.
>
>
> > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> > news:NvGdnbW12t0LQTKiRVn-jw_at_golden.net...
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > The catalog in an rdbms is entirely meta-data and is a rich source of
> > > meta-data. Goedel's proof basically states that the conceptual level
of
> > > discourse is necessary, which does not in any way invalidate any part
of
> a
> > > logical data model.
> > >
> > > The combination of conceptual, logical and physical is complete. The
> > > relational model is the best known logical data model, and it
> specifically
> > > limits itself to the logical level of discourse for important reasons
> like
> > > separation of concerns.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > "Tom Hester" <tom_at_metadata.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f488$3fafcb95$45033832$28183_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> > > > Gödel's proof is of the incompleteness of arithmetic, not relational
> > > algebra
> > > > (or calculus, or...). Essentially, Gödel demonstrated that a theory
> of
> > > > arithmetic must contain at least one intensional statement of the
> form:
> > > > 'this sentence is false'.
> > > >
> > > > Arithmetic had always been assumed to be purely extensional. Codd's
> > > > relational theory was purely extensional. Remember all of the early
> > > caveats
> > > > on relational theory of the form 'first order function free'. Those
> > > caveats
> > > > were to insure that the theory was only extensional. To put it in
> other
> > > > words, it only dealt with sets of things in the real world. A
> > relational
> > > > model is a first order description of some subset of the real world.
> > > >
> > > > The cost of this purely extensional restriction is the almost total
> lack
> > > of
> > > > metadata information available in a relational system.
> > > >
> > > > "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> > > > news:xJzrb.4373$aT.2467_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > Did Date ever make reference to Godel's
> > > > > incompleteness theorem? If so, how did
> > > > > he handle it?
> > > > >
> > > > > How does relational theory come to terms
> > > > > with Godel's incompleteness theorem?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Farmer Brown
> > > > > Falls Creek
> > > > > OZ
> > > > > www.mountainman.com.au
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 11 2003 - 00:19:21 CET