Re: Relational vs network vs hierarchic databases

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:JaOdna92bb3HQTzcRVn-og_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:cnqsmk$j3t$1_at_news.netins.net...
>
<snip>
> > That's fine, especially since "natural thinking" is a very fuzzy term.
> When
> > I put the content behind the "how we think", I'll likely refer more to
> > language -- we don't all think alike but the interface from one person's
> > thinking to another is via language.
>
> You have to extend the notion of "language" to iconography, or whatever
the
> word is. The GUI would never have been as popular as it is if people did
> not think in images.

Good point. My father is a linguist and my daughter introduced me to semiotics and both are important in this, although when I did reading in each of these areas I wasn't so sure I wanted to get too deep into either of these worlds or I was going to extend the scope of my efforts beyond my means.

> > > It's not clear that the examples you cite are "successful". What is
> > > success?
> >
> > At least this -- that if SQL were able to ask the question and retrieve
a
> > result set, then these languages could do so as well, so they are at
least
> > as complete as SQL.
>
> Again, what is "Well"?

A good example of how language, especially in writing, often fails to communicate. The words "as well" meant "too". If SQL can ask a question and get an answer, then these languages can ask the same question and get the same answer.

> BTW, if there were a relational interface language that were better than
> SQL, how would that influence your thinking.
> > > Simplicity, power and demonstrated worth are reasons to stick to one
> > > compound.
> >
> > Other models had demonstrated worth prior to "relational theory".
> Although
> > think it is good to standardize, the problem I'm addressing is that the
> cost
> > of ownership for enterprise level software has skyrocketed during my
> tenure
> > in this industry, in spite of the cost of hardware plummeting.
>
> This is certainly true. But I am yet to be convinced that the relational
> model is the culprit.

Me too -- it is a hypothesis of mine that it is one of the culprits. There are other problems with RDBMS products that also contribute. I haven't figured out how to test this hypothesis, however. <snip>
--dawn Received on Mon Nov 22 2004 - 15:11:49 CET