Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example

"robert" <gnuoytr_at_rcn.com> wrote in message news:da3c2186.0410241849.7eedc5ef_at_posting.google.com...
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<1dCdncVMDNCImuHcRVn-vA_at_comcast.com>...
> > "robert" <gnuoytr_at_rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:da3c2186.0410240956.76e4a5d1_at_posting.google.com...
> > > if you can refute say, Pascal's, objections to XQuery (lots of other
> > > thoughtful people have published on the futility of XML/XQuery, so you're
> > > free to pick another); then i'll listen to this drivel.
> >
> > It's not drivel. It may or may not be wrong, but the person who wrote it is
> > not a total fool.
> >
> > You can strengthen your argument without resorting to name calling.
>
> i made no reference to the poster, only to the statements in the post.

Nonetheless, your inflammatory langauge was unnecessary, and as far as I am concerned is unwelcome.

> anyone else is welcome to refute Pascal, should they wish to. XQuery is
> a bad imitation of IMS, as Pascal so exquisitely points out. those who
> wish to champion a data model which the relational model replaced, and
> did so *on purpose*, have the intellectual obligation to demonstrate
> how they are correct. it's really not a matter of opinion, any more
> than the Pythagorean theorem is 'opinion'.

The Pythagorean theorem describes the relationship between the edges of a right triagle; it tells us nothing about how to build a useful data management system. Mathematical soundness is no guarantee of utility.

If you wish to be pedantic, you could at least make an attempt to capitalize correctly. Proper capitalization is also something that isn't a matter of opinion.

Marshall Received on Mon Oct 25 2004 - 07:00:21 CEST