Re: Codd provided appropriate mathematics ... (was Re: Relational and MV (response to "foundations of relational theory"))

"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:BPf_b.72074$Wa.56878_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > While there
> > is a mathematical model involved, it is just one of many ways to model
> data
> > and there is no mathematical proof that it is "right" and that any other
> is
> > wrong. There is also, to my knowledge, no emperical data to suggest that
> it
> > is "right" from the perspective of yielding overall better, faster, more
> > reliable, etc software applications.
>
>
> I doubt whether one could in fact benchmark the relational *model*,
> but rather only an implementation instance of the model. Thus I'd not
> expect there to ever be any empiricism in this area.

I think Dawn is referring (in the second part) to the possibility of testing whether software development is more cost-effective using one data model vs. another. This sort of thing is quite difficult, but it is certainly possible. I have, for example, read some interesting papers comparing programmer productivity in different programming languages.

As to the first part, I would assert that right and wrong are not qualities of a model. Rather, models are said to be more or less useful. I think Dawn has a valid point in critiquing the RDBMS world's tendency towards saying that the RDM is the only mathematically sound model.

Marshall Received on Wed Feb 25 2004 - 05:00:30 CET