Re: What predicates the following relation represents

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:<c7e01e$oek$1_at_news.netins.net>...
> "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?

oh please, stop it. sql has been codified since 1986. updated along the way, of course.

 There are folks working
> on putting data specs (metadata) in XML documents for use by Java classes,
> rules engines, database constraint processes, etc.

you mean crap like Xquery?? again, read FOLDOC on 'network databases'. xml is a bad hierarchical data structure.

Is the fact that XML
> documents are highly accessible something that makes that approach better,
> by your logic?

if xml is 'high accessible' and 'self describing' what does this mean?

<sdkfj>
 aksdfjkasldjf ksdjfkasdjf
</sdkfj>

 Is not longer inaccessible SQL-based constraints nor
> inaccessible Java classes then, so would that be better?
> >
> --dawn
> <snip>
Received on Fri May 07 2004 - 14:17:27 CEST