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

On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:06:22 +0200, mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:

>> 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.

This is a very basic knowledge taught in every serious database introductory course.

>But here I can ask the people in support of this statement:
> - Better at what?

Simplicity

> - What exacltly was proven?

That the Relational Model is superior.

> - Could you please give a reference?

Codd, E. F. and C. J. Date. "Interactive Support for Nonprogrammers: The Relational and Network Approaches." IBM Research Report RJ1400 (June 6th, 1974). Republished in Randall J. Rustin (ed.), Proc. ACM SIGMOD Workshop on Data Description, Access, and Control, Vol. II, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1974. Also in C. J. Date, Relational Database: Selected Writings. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1986.

http://www.intelligententerprise.com/db_area/archives/1999/992206/online1.jhtml

http://www.intelligententerprise.com/db_area/archives/1999/991105/online2.jhtml

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

We are talking about very different things. I am not talking about drawings, I am talking about the network and hierarchical approaches.

>> 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.

What a nonsense!

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Mon May 31 2004 - 01:06:51 CEST