Re: object algebra

> > > so commonly used as a slam against relational, as if
> > > it's not "multi-dimensional" enough, that it disturbs me when I see it.
> >
> > Why not prove those people wrong by providing a clean (NULL-less)
> > solution to the example shown at www.xdb1.com/Example/Ex076.asp ?
>
> Prove what wrong?

Prove to people like me that RDM is "multi-dimensional" enough.

> Exactly what problem are you trying to solve?

I already have a solution to a specific problem (Ex076) which I believe begins to exceed RDM's scope. I am asking you provide an equivalent (normalized, NULL-less) solution so we can determine if RDM is "multi-dimensional" enough.

Some persons, like Bob and Alfredo, believe there is only one correct model for representing things: RDM. I contend that other models are possible. Each model provides different advantages and disadvantages. I believe all models (RDM, TDM, etc) are subsets of relational algebra. I also contend that TDM is closer to relational algebra than RDM. A more general model(TDM) provides a more complex solution to a problem that is within the scope of a more specific model(RDM). The more general model(TDM) gains advantage as the complexity of problems increases. You and I disagreed on the veracity of the above. I believe Ex076 begins to exceed RMD's scope. I asked you to represent the same data (without NULLs and normalized) as shown in Ex076 and generate the same report (common ancestors). By comparing the solutions, I contend one will conclude that TDM is more general (but not necessarily the best for most applications). As of yet, no one has provided an equivalent representation of the data with RDM. Will you be the first? Received on Fri Feb 27 2004 - 01:37:35 CET