Re: What predicates the following relation represents

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:taqdna2fA8pL4gfdRVn-jg_at_comcast.com...
>
> "robert" <gnuoytr_at_rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:da3c2186.0405060759.5f17fbf9_at_posting.google.com...
>
> > (and if you're phobic about joins, find another line of work)
>
> Excellent!
>
>
> > unfortunately, the MV/XML/java twinks are pounding the drum these days.
> > Dr. Codd gave us Data Independence with the RM. the twinks are
> > sending us back to the days of COBOL/VSAM, where the only way to
> > comprehend the data is through the application code. that is STUPID.
> >
>
> Too true. Unfortunately, these people can create databases where the
data
> is widely shared,
> but the comprehension of the data is encapsulated inside some inaccessible
> object. And they think this makes sense!

I gather now that you are talking about whether the language(s) associated with database-centric software applications should be declarative, procedural, OO, etc, right? Isn't the "comprehension of the data" in an RDBMS "encapsulated inside some inaccessible object" from the perspective of somone who doesn't know the declarative language? There are folks working on putting data specs (metadata) in XML documents for use by Java classes, rules engines, database constraint processes, etc. Is the fact that XML documents are highly accessible something that makes that approach better, by your logic? Is not longer inaccessible SQL-based constraints nor inaccessible Java classes then, so would that be better?
>

--dawn
<snip> Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 20:26:47 CEST