Re: MV counterexample

From: Karel Miklav <karel_at_inetis.spppambait.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:35:03 +0200
Message-ID: <c7cmao02o3q@enews4.newsguy.com>

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message

>>"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
>>>"Karel Miklav" <karel_at_inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message
>>>>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's easy to misinterpret this but...

>>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

my point was, there is no inherent structure in data. We treat characters in a string and numbers in an array like they are somehow connected by invisible ties which preserve their order/structure, but they're not, they're only conencted in our haeds. There are reasons to optimize, but the structure is not one of them, rather a way.

Regards,
Karel Miklav Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 01:35:03 CDT