Re: funny article

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message news:9ggfr01nul6cj5heuikrvu8uudbnk29gi7_at_4ax.com...
> "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.

And now "graph DBMS's" can solve the problems of RDBMS. Interesting ... perhaps there wasn't a problem in the previous data models, just in their implementations (sound familiar?)

>>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.

I have read almost all of Date's 8th edition of Intro to Database Systems, as well as the Third Manifesto and many others. So, I bother as much as the next guy, I suspect.

>>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".

Flawed logic, however. I've tried not to say "1NF" of late, but once it was completely clear to me that there is no mathematical nor logical basis for putting data into 1NF as we have been taught for a couple of decades, I put those foundations of relational theory in proper perspective.

>>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.

Neither is elegant to my tastes. RM set us back too far unnecessarily with its insistance on scalar/atomic values.

> [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.

Yup, it CAN be! I definitely agree. Blind adherence to flawed theory is not practical, however.

Cheers! --dawn Received on Thu Dec 09 2004 - 06:55:39 CET