Re: object algebra
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:13:27 GMT
Message-ID: <bHq%b.50100$mV2.36024_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
> What I am saying is that the internal format of RDM is
> "rectangularish" and while it can also display things as tables, trees
> and sentences, it is clumsier at some things like trees compared to
> tables.
RDM has no internal format. That's physical implementation. Read about TransRelational (subtype of Tarrin transforms) sometime to see just how different (and useful!) a clever physical scheme can be.
> TDM/XDb1's internal structure is more general and therefore
> more neutral to either.
More general? Not really. How? What is the structure, anyway?
> While XDb1 is only experimental, it does provide a way to manage
> things thru tables, trees and sentences.
"Managing things" isn't the end goal of relational. Deductive correctness is (among other things). You can "manage", whatever that means, through an arbitrary number of mechanisms of whatever shape you like.
> XDb1 allows things of variable shapes to be entered via table, tree
> and english-like sentences. For example, the following sentences
> creates the equivalent of a relation with 2 tuples.
>
> person isa thing.
> john isa person.
> mary isa person.
So how is this better than a relation with 2 tuples? Received on Thu Feb 26 2004 - 19:13:27 CET