Re: Semi-structured data
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:52:02 -0700
Message-ID: <2k3hjkF179jftU1_at_uni-berlin.de>
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
>>It means that the system can work with partial knowledge of the whole >>structure. You don't get to decree what is "semistructured" and what is >>not. The label associated with definition that I gave has already >>imposed itself in common usage both in the CS community, and the >>software engineering practice.
>
>
> It still fails Occam’s Razor, that is, it introduces a new
> concept that serves nothing over what there was before.
>
That's just your private uninformed opinion.
> Your definition, while useful as being precise, really adds
> nothing to encapsulation, and is not different from structured data at
> all given we don’t have exhaustive knowlege and (or) are often not
> interested in all details.
>
I doubt that you have any precise definition of "encapsulation", as to regards to the previous database theory, the database management or applications have full knowledge of the entire schemata for data that was manipulated.
It turns out that there are really useful applications for the situation where the system has only partial knowledge of the schema.
I won't be spoonfeeding you with basic knowledge, this is, after all a newsgroup not a reference manual.
citeseer is your friend
>
>
>>Unless you can claim that you have the perfect sense of English >>language, and the rest of the CS community and the industry simply >>doesn't, then arguing over the chosen name is trolling.
>
>
> Well, they keep calling SQL relational…
>
>
"They" ???
Any evidence whatsoever ? Please after you clarify what you mean by they.
As opposed to your claim, I can on the spot identify several college books that call SQL relationally - complete, which is acurate, and they also prove it.
>
>>Even in that case all you can do is whine about the label, but not about >>the content under the label, and you can do that all day, but, of >>course, nobody will notice you, and it ain't gonna change just because >>you think it is a poorly chosen name.
>
>
> Words are important. They are used by people with hidden (or
> not-so-hidden) agendas to confound meaning. OO, XML, all of them have
> their Newspeak: classes, objects, semistructured and the like, galore.
>
>
Words maybe importat but mr. Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra doesn't get to decide what is a properly usage of some word and what isn't.
>
>>>>>>which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of CS community. >>>>> >>>>> That says nothing about its preciseness or usefulness. >>>> >>>>It says something very precise about the legitimacy of wannabe trolls on >>>>c.d.t who want to wave their magic hands and pretend there's some kind >>>>of truth or useful knowledge in their baseless claims. >>> >>> I don’t follow your reasoning here. I suspect because there’s >>>more anger than reasoning in this your paragraph. >> >>Or maybe because you don't want to read, and it is convenient to ignore >>it. Fine.
>
>
> It is really anger. You are loosing your reasoning faculties,
> intelligent and informed as you are.
>
> Just reread the above posts and see that you fell into
> reasoning from authority, and furthermore you made a personal attack
> on whomever doesn’t agree with your reasoning from authority.
>
> Oi Vei.
>
>
Argument by authority if there was one, is certainly superior to, and always a valid response to argument by hand waving.
>
>>> If you were right, there wouldn’t be so much SQL, OO, XML crap >>>all around. >> >>Non-sequitur.
>
>
> Not at all. If CS had high standards, it would influence more
> the state of affairs.
Non sequitur. If Leandro was smart and had high standards we'd have known the grand unified theory by now.
Can you do better than cheap demagogy ?
> It is when people compromise that they get
> accepted by the world at large, but then their ideas loose
> effectiveness.
>
>
It is when you expose no idea but a repetitive and montonuous handwaving
that any discussion on comp.database.theory becomes a joke.
>
>>>>Who decreed that there's any good in the majority of CS community >>>>using FP languages ? >>> >>> OT… and irrelevant. I only painted a broad picture of the >>>field, I’m not wanting to argue every single point of it here. >> >>You're broad picture is patently false in both the essentials and the >>details, and is not done in good will, plus you have absolutely no >>standing to "paint a broad picture of the CS community".
>
>
> If you really want to argue that, fine, but I won’t bother
> until you actually make your point instead of jumping to conclusions.
> Just do it in personal email, this is not an adequate forum for
> personal feuds.
>
>
Were you talking about the personal feud of the honourable Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra with the CS community as a whole ?
Cut the crap here, will you ?
I made the point that you had no standing to make the point by hand waving. You are utterly unqualified (not to say a wannabe) for somebody who pretends to "paint a broad picture of CS community".
If you can't understand this simple point, you really should work on your ability to understand.
>
>> >>Just grow up, will you ? Comp.database.theory has been in useless >> >>troll mode for months now, and you can't in all honesty blame it all >> >>on Pick fans. >> > >> > Don’t feed the trolls. >> > >> > Unless you yourself is the said one. >> > >> > Does not accepting mumbo-jumbo qualifies as trolling? >> >>I don't feed the troll
>
>
> Because there is none here.
>
>
>
>>I'm just correcting a matter of fact issue.
>
>
> Trying to. AFAIU, you failed at that.
>
I could have predicted that your understanding is both biased and limited.
> Or better yet, the matter of fact you corrected indeed, but
> that did not make the concept you champion any more useful or less
> harmful.
Harmful ? Who said it was harmful ?
Yet more handwaving coming this way ? Received on Fri Jun 25 2004 - 22:52:02 CEST