Re: Relational vs. PICK/Object DBMS

"x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4089025a$1_at_post.usenet.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:c668bn$ji2$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > By using terms such as "base relation" you are locking into some
> relational
> > thinking already.
>
> I don't know any other way ...
> Could you a link to a good PICK tutorial ?

As you might already know, there is no theory laid out for PICK in the same way as for relational, however, if you read works related to XML and languages that work wtih XML, you get at least a hint at PICK (with PICK being less complex in many respects). The other place to look regarding the theory is at theories related to the web as a directed graph.

> > [If you include an attribute named Man# in your example, I'll be
> > soooooooooooo disappointed bz that was offensive in the 70's (and I
spent
> > many "man hours" ridding my company of such a field name) and is REALLY
> > offensive in 2004! You should see the woman pages we put out there as
> > documentation! smiles. --dawn]
>
> I thought womens want to work "man hours" like everybody else. :-)

I've put in plenty of "man years" but was not relieved of woman years, so I had to do those concurrently. I've settled on woman years now.

> In my native langue there are different words for man and human.
> We (the men) never use "man" to mean "human male" (but sometimes womens
do).
> It's not my fault that in English "man" means "human being" but also
"human
> male".

OK, I won't blame that problem on you then. smiles. --dawn Received on Fri Apr 23 2004 - 15:17:19 CEST