Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:<clhql7$m53$1_at_news.netins.net>...
> "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.
> You are right -- your response was not a B. Badour type of response and I'm
> certain that there are times I've written drivel in this forum, but I do try
> to be rational. However, I do appreciate that I now have knights in shining
> armor as they were rather silent in the BB days. ;-)
>
> > anyone else is welcome to refute Pascal, should they wish to. XQuery is
> > a bad imitation of IMS, as Pascal so exquisitely points out.
>
> I've written an extensive portfolio of IMS applications in my day and XQuery
> seems to me to be nothing like it from a language standpoint and XML has
> only minor similarities from a data model standpoint IMO. The one
> similarity is that graphs are permitted. IMS was written off by relational
> theorists by calling it Hierarchical

most of this will have to wait, but fact:

IMS
IBM's premier transactional and hierarchical database management system for critical on-line operational and e-business applications and data.

(from ibm's site)

and then claiming Relational was
> better. I have yet to find solid reasoning for writing off data graphs such
> as IMS (or WWW for that matter). When Pascal and others get to the point of
> calling something Hierarchical or "Network" databases, then they say things
> like "and it was proven long ago that those were poorer data models" or
> something like that. So, can you show me the proof, as in the Pythagorean
> theorm for your position? --dawn
>
> > 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'.
Received on Mon Oct 25 2004 - 14:39:35 CEST