Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:31:51 GMT
Message-ID: <bDtnd.29667$ga6.1379441@phobos.telenet-ops.be>

Ja Lar wrote:

> "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> ...

>>Costin Cozianu wrote:
>>
>>>In The Third Manifesto, D&D affirm that 'tis a great blunder to equate
>>>"classes" with relations or with relation variables. Some people still
>>>believe that, although the riguorous proof of the drastic consequences
>>>supposed to follow is completely lacking.
>>>
>>>So here's a direct positive refutation, including with inheritance( well
>>>that maybe later, as it is orthogonal).

> 

>>You are so right that it's almost boring. :-) If there had been any real
>>logical problems with letting relational variables play the role of types
>>then it would have not been possible or very difficult to come up with a
>>decent formal data model for that. It wasn't. QED

> 
> Your observation is so profound that some may be uncertain if your are 
> sarcastic or blunt.

Actually, I was trying to be both at once. :-) But you are right. I probably shouldn't.

> Are you are referring to the model that allows an attribute to be of a > relational type-domain ...

Not exactly. I'm referring to the model where if you have have a relational variable Person you can then use "Person" as a type for your columns. That's what it means to use relational variables as types.

• Jan Hidders

Received on Fri Nov 19 2004 - 15:31:51 CST