Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 17:06:22 +0200
Message-ID: <40b9f86b$0$561$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Alfredo Novoa wrote:
[snip]
> Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

>>It is in the leap from doing relational theory to thinking that
>>the application of such theory is the best approach to storing/retrieving
>>propositions using computers by a business -- that is where there is a
>>rather significant leap of faith.

>
> You are wrong. It was mathematically proven
> that it is better than the graph based approaches.

This is a very strange statement.
It gets stated over and over again,
not only in this newsgroup. Outside this newsgroup I am supposed to take it for granted and not take time to think about it.

But here I can ask the people in support of this statement:

Better at what?
What exacltly was proven?
Could you please give a reference?

I happen to like the relational model for thinking about data in a detailed fashion, checking and double checking the database and the support it gives to the whole of the system it is part of.

I happen to like graph based approaches
for the overall picture and to elicit design ideas from non-IT professionals.

But that is both just preference and
personal experience, not proof.

[snip]

>>I'm not opposed to faith

>
> I am completely opposed to faith and other forms of irrationalism. The
> Relational Model is maths not irrational faith.

Rationalism is as irrational(/rational) as any oher faith. I see reason(ratio) as a tool, even more so than language (some posts ago somebody claimed languages are tools). Received on Sun May 30 2004 - 10:06:22 CDT