Re: object algebra

"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message <news:7gN_b.27491$tj5.9944_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...

> "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne_at_acm.org> wrote in message
> news:c1g7eq$1ia96o$3_at_ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de...

> > Perhaps a relational data representation _should_ be analagous to Lisp
> > structures or Prolog facts, and therefore be able to be of pretty much
> > any shape. But in the absence of conspicuous implementations of such,
> > it shouldn't be surprising for people to make the "table" mistake...
> > --
> > wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('_at_'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','ntlug.org').
> > http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
> > :FATAL ERROR -- YOU ARE OUT OF VECTOR SPACE
>
> True enough - it's just so commonly used as a slam against relational, as if
> it's not "multi-dimensional" enough, that it disturbs me when I see it.
> Somehow the fact that reality is messy bleeds into assumptions that our code
> and/or data have to be messy too, which is just giving up (and professional
> malpractice besides).

If relations are necessarily 2D rectangular tables, then objects are nothing but mind-numbingly, insanely baroque 1D bit vectors. Therefore, even a relation containing objects is still a 2D table.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  DC8s in Spaace: <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!