Re: Microsoft and the two great blunders
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:40:08 -0800
Message-ID: <bsdbmu$c7iot$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> Costin Cozianu <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bsavog$bg13t$1@ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>
>>Well, if you want to hold to the relational orthodoxy, you ought to call >>those relvar. But to make it clear we'll call them table, shall we ?
>
>
> I don't see anything clearer in table. Table value or table variable?
>
>>Now let's further consider that the table EMPLOYEE stores all the tuples >>that have the type EMPLOYEE%ROWTYPE (using SQL terms, i.e. the type of >>the tuples).
>
>
> Tuples have a tuple type, scalars have a scalar type. If you want to
> represent a scalar value with a tuple value you need a type redesign.
> You may use a monadic tuple or an n-adic tuple.
>
Where monadic is the incorrect name for unary tuple ? In modern computer science the terms monads and monadic have a very specific usage. A relation is a set of tuples. Therefore a table may store all the values of a certain tuple type.
Probably you say there should be a distinction between a table with one column of type EMPLOYEE%ROWTYPE, and a table with n columns such as firstName, lastName, salary, etc -- all the components of EMPLOYEE%ROWTYPE.
This distinction is not even worth bothering to discuss, and a carefully designed relational DBMS would be able to skip over the differences.
>
>>I'm waiting for someone to make the case why would that be such a big deal ?
>
>
> It is not a big deal.
>
So then the great blunder, it's not such a big deal, or is it ?
>
>>Quite nice. But according to D&D types are sets of values. Well, then a >>relation is a set of value.
>
>
> According to D&D and many other people, types can be viewed as sets of
> values associated to sets of operators.
Not unless they've written one more edition of The Third Manifesto where they corrected their mistakes.
Here's a reference for you:
http://www.hughdarwen.freeola.com/TheThirdManifesto.web/D.GRM
As you may see, the user who declares a type has no mean to properly express a set of operators as integral part of the type definition.
IS PLANE_FIGURE POSSREP { A LENGTH, B LENGTH, CTR POINT };
The dots in PLANE_FIGURE definition belong to D&D. I suspect that the whole purpose why they are there is simply because they don't know what should be there in their place.
Now, I wonder what you or anyone would replace those dots with, within the framework established by D&D, so that it makes any sense whatsoever. But if the framework is so weak that it can't even deal with this much it should be either reformed or discarded altogether.
> On the other hand, a relation
> is an individual constant. But the "great blunder" is to confuse types
> with relation variables, not whith relations (values).
Nobody is confusing anything.
And this is no blunder. Most people *map* entity-types to tables. I.E. for every entity type found during analysis, they typically create a table in the relational schema to store values of that type.
> Another common
> mistake is to confuse values with variables all the time.
>
>
>>According to proper type theory, a type is much more, of course.
>
>
> According to D&D too.
>
>
>>For lack of better things to do, people think that if they throw >>Microsoft and a couple of relational orthodoxy together, they've got a >>valid point.
>
>
> It is not only against relational correction, it is against most
> fundamental data management principles.
>
Like ? Can you name one data management principle that the poewpoint, I suspect, is against ?
> The "Persistence Layer" approach leads to manage data in the
> applications using network structures, to move from declarative code
> to procedural code and to use DBMSes as mere file managers.
>
Move from what declarative code, to what procedural code ?
> That's the big deal. It is a return to the stone age.
>
Return to stone age from where ? Where were you or Microsoft from that matter so that a powerpoint will return you to stone age. I suspect you were in some place better ?
> Microsoft kept away from this nonsense until now, that was reason
> because I posted the link.
>
>
Oh, common. Comp.database.theory has become a place where to unleash our rage against powerpoints ?
It would be a much better effort to prove that something else can be done instead.
> Regards
> Alfredo
Cheers and merry Christmas,
Costin
Received on Thu Dec 25 2003 - 01:40:08 CET