Re: Relations as Repeating Groups & Namespaces

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c9o255$ujs$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message
> news:2i940rFju0m6U1_at_uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9nh8r$i8f$1_at_news.netins.net...
> <snip>
> > After you've read this book and/or taken two or three
> > semesters of graduate level relational database theory, we can talk.
>
> Now, son, did you really want to say that? ;-)

You should see what I wrote and didn't send! I was on the fence, and low on caffeine...

>
> > Note
> > that I am a practitioner, not a theorist, which is why, as you may have
> > noticed, I supply examples rather than enounce theories and discuss
> proofs.
>
> That's just fine -- I've been a practitioner for over a quarter of a
century
> and after you have... ;-)

I started in the biz in 1969. I learned IBM 360 assembly language and how to wire (read program) punch card sorters .

>
> > Having studied the theory (in exhausting detail), I am content that it
is
> > internally correct, and can be applied properly to most situations.
>
> "Can be" is not an issue. I think that folks like Date and Celko help the
> practitioners with various design patterns for handling less-then-obvious

Agreed.

> implementations and, yes, the relational model, even as implemented in
> current SQL-DBMS's works. How SHOULD WE do business, is my question. It
is
> obvious that the scope of the relational model is such that it doesn't
> extend to all best practices within the "data processing" industry. I
also
> suspect, but have not proven, that such things as not permitting lists in
> the value of an attribute (which has been the case for years with
> SQL-DBMS's, at least not supporting such with proper operations/functions
in
> the first order predicate logic of the system) are not good ways of doing
> business.

Spoken like a true programmer. But, yes, there are some things it is not appropriate for. However, the proof is in the pudding.

I've seen relational theory in action as well as other
> a-relational approaches (which do not rise to the level of mathematical
> theories yet, in general, although some do). Off the top of my head,
> without adequate research to back this up -- relational approaches seem to
> be big, heavy, brittle, and expensive while other approaches I have used
> have been more big bang for the buck.

Depends on the implementation, but I would not describe most as "brittle". Bang for the buck is very vague. Let's talk real ROI.

>
> > Note
> > that among scholars, there has been little in the way of major revisions
> to
> > relational theory.
>
> Yes, I do note that, but that's gonna change and is changing (knock on
> wood).

It's been changing for years. Just like the ozone layer. Wake me when something important happens. BTW, any real change will be caused by the next significant processor and memory leaps.

>
> > There have been extensions and expansions
> > (object-relational), some refinements (EER) as well as some argument as
to
> > implementation (SQL compliance, E.g.), but no one has said, "Wait a
> minute -
> > there has been no definitive discussion. We need to clarify some things
> for
> > everybody."
>
> me for one
>
> > Except by posters to this newsgroup.
>
> I have said these things before the newsgroup and am using this group to
> learn more and try to figure out the thought processes of those who buy
> relational theory front to back.
>
> > Like those who insist that
> > data is code or functional dependencies are functions :) Sorry- didn't
> mean
> > to open that can 'o worms again, but I couldn't resist a good elbow jab.
>
> Your forgiven - you are young, so you know everything. ;-)
>

I suspect we are the same age. I may even be older, grasshopper.

> > But seriously, if you have $90 to spare, you may want to winch up a copy
> of
> > Elmasri (4th Ed out now). Or maybe hit a campus bookstore and peruse it.
> > Bring coffee- there's not much of a plot, and character development is,
> > well, not very interesting...
>
> You might be shocked to hear how far I would have to drive to put my hands
> on a copy of that book shy of buying it.

Contact me directly. I may have a spare.

  Since I bought the comparably
> priced Date book, I'll stick with that. I'm taking a break about 1/2 way
> through it, but I do suspect I have read at least as much as you in the
area
> of relational theory. I'm just slower to catch on, perhaps, and given my
> experience, I'm not about to buy into the religion without understanding
> more precisely what is useful and what is not about this theory. Before I
> had such experience, I was a relational believer myself. Cheers! --dawn
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 03:57:28 CEST