Re: MV counterexample
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:03:31 -0500
Message-ID: <c7bhb2$cha$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c0e3f26e.0405051133.1d896668_at_posting.google.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:<c7ana5$tag$1_at_news.netins.net>...
> > "Karel Miklav" <karel_at_inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message
> > news:c7a9eg016dp_at_enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> > > Data is actually just a SET of whatevers, the views could be more or
> > > less structured. That's it.
> >
> > Well, it's good to have PROOF like that! But, what if a better
metaphor
> > for data is that is it is a tree?
>
> It isn't. In a tree everything is either the root or belongs to
> something (which belongs to something ... which belongs to the root).
> Clearly not ALL data fits that metaphor. Not even MOST data does.
Let's just say that what is clear to you is also clear to me and accept that arguement. Then what if a di-graph is a better metaphor? What are your criteria for determining what is the best metaphor for data modeling, database design and/or implementation? --dawn Received on Wed May 05 2004 - 22:03:31 CEST