Re: Is relational theory incomplete?

"Tom Hester" <tom_at_metadata.com> wrote in message news:62334$3fb01cfe$45033832$2883_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>
> "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.

CAD is a class of applications and not a logical data model. If InterDB is your idea of a logical data model and if you accept the use of the word "semantic" found at
http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~dbm/InterDB/informations.html, then you are profoundly more ignorant of data management fundamentals than I thought earlier.

> > >, 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.

I agree you would probably be offended if you had a clue, but I perceived no risk of that.

[remainder of Tom's ignorant ramblings snipped] Received on Tue Nov 11 2003 - 00:44:44 CET