Re: funny article

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:

><eric.kaun_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1102527502.957289.49990_at_c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

>> I'm still unclear about how a "data exchange model" differs from a data
>> model
>
>'cause it doesn't ;-)

     Oh, but it does. A data model has semantics. Data exchange only *might*.

[snip]

>I'm sure that is true of some research, but the origin of XML is very
>similar to the origins of pre-relational data models -- there was a problem
>to solve related to language-based data (compared to numbers, for example),
>so a variation on diagramming sentences was used to model propositions. So,
>unlike relational data models, XML, PICK, and other graph structures for
>propositions were pragmatic. They were never a solution looking for a
>problem. My research into PICK is pragmatic -- from the perspective of the

     RM was a solution to the then hierarchical DBMSs.

>data model (not from all perspectives) it seemed to work better than
>relational structures -- why? I suspect that some XML research is similarly

     Because you do not bother with the theory which is what the RM is.

>motivated.

     Adhockery.

[snip]

>Reviewing the politics and marketing of how change happens in any field
>shows up better stories than any soap opera. I've been trying to figure out
>how "relational theory" got canonized even though it set some aspects of
>computing back years in my opinion. I suspect that the elevation of XML to

     Because it is grounded in logic. It is not just someone's "good idea".

>an unearned status is not unlike a similar elevation of relational theory a
>couple of decades ago.

     No, I do not think it is connected at all. RM makes sense. XML is an ugly, ugly kludge.

[snip]

>XML, PICK, and other graph implementations might have started with
>pragmatics -- something that works -- so that the "theory" isn't completed
>at this point, but I might (someday) be bold enough to claim that the other
>way around -- starting with a theory and then trying to make it practical --
>yields less favorable results. I'd rather start with something that works
>and have people in the back room trying to match a good theory to it than
>start with a theory and have people in the front room struggle to make it
>useful.

     I would rather start with a foundation. I have solved some problem very quickly because I had the appropriate theory to apply. Those who did not floundered.

     Good theory can be *extremely* practical.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.