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

"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d5Gxc.6813$zZ2.831_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...

> My point is that data has no natural form, plain and simple. I've
> encountered too many cases over the years where accepting the "natural
form"
> as the users stated it would have resulted in brittle design - where
> abstraction and extension yielded immediate results.

Form is in the eye of the beholder.

The ER model has given me very good results, when it comes to data analysis, and two way communication with subject matter experts who are typically not systems experts.

The relational model, such as I know it, has given me very good results when it comes to data design, with the exception of certain cases, where a different model would have been more natural. But those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

SQL or indexed files have given me very good results when implementing a relational design. The principle difference between "SQL databases" and indexed files has been in the areas of classical DBMS services and data independence. But you can implement a relational data model using either one.

Which form is "natural". It depends. Who are we talking to? Received on Wed Jun 09 2004 - 18:28:16 CEST