Re: Pizza Example

From: Eric Kaun <>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:40:23 GMT
Message-ID: <HLyec.53517$>

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <> wrote in message news:c54cdd$upt$
> "Eric Kaun" <> wrote in message
> news:SRhdc.13831$
> > Of course. This assumes that your main reason for storing the data is to
> > display it again, in its original form, for humans. If that's all you're
> > doing, then many different simple systems will suffice - a Word
> a
> > spreadsheet, etc. But if you're trying to reason about the data, then
> > need to structure it in a way amenable to automated deduction. You are
> also
> > perfectly free to keep a copy of the original, which would then be
> dependent
> > upon the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key per normalization
> > rules.
> I want my cake and eat it too! The PICK structure does what I have
> described and is "amenable to automated deduction" and it seems to me that
> there is some value in that, but I'm still poking and prodding to clarify
> what that might be.

Of course it's amenable, just much less so. It's its lack of symmetry and consistency that poses a problem. By nesting values inside values (and then a further layer inside that, I believe), you complicate the algebras, closure, and optimizations. Relational is much simpler, hence its power.

On a related note, things like objects add a great deal of complexity in the pursuit of "intuitive" modeling techniques; specifically hierarchies, graphs, and a persistent (no pun intended) confusion between variables and values. That additional complexity always comes at a cost, and it's unfortunate that people are so uncomfortable with symbolic logic and related disciplines that they bite into much more complexity than they would otherwise have to, simply because the "operational" (procedural) approach appears intuitive.

  • erk
Received on Mon Apr 12 2004 - 17:40:23 CEST

Original text of this message