Re: Relational vs network vs hierarchic databases

"erk" <eric.kaun_at_pnc.com> wrote in message news:1100716326.318344.129730_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not disagreeing that you can view the web as a di-graph, or as a
> relation as you have it above. But what's the value in it?

Referring only to the structure, not the implementation, the way that people think often aligns better with a graph model than a relation. This says nothing about the implementation, but the high level view of the data.

> The web was
> originally for browsing, and searching (to some extent, given that each
> page, as you say, can be a block box). Like XML, people are now trying
> to use it for different purposes than those around which it was
> engineered, and its sloppy evolution also makes it a far different
> beast than a database for enterprise support and automation. A business
> database structured like the web would cause the enterprise to grind to
> a screeching halt,

If the implementation were identical, then yes, but a business whose data model is based on a graph rather than a set of relations does just fine.

> effectively disable expansion and integration, etc.
> - as you can see in any attempt to "data mine" in a legacy system whose
> ridigity and lack of support forced its users to misappropriate various
> fields for their own purposes.

I've found the graphs to be far less rigid than relations, but still haven't put my finger on why that is. I still suspect it has to do with the reasons why the web caught on -- it thinks something like people do. Back to reading -- I'm determined to learn enough that I can understand what I have seen to be either a fluke or to be attributable to xyz. Cheers! --dawn

> - erk
>
Received on Wed Nov 17 2004 - 23:56:22 CET