Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:22:05 -0600
"Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote in message
> "Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es> ...
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:26:25 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis"
>> <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:
> You are playing with words again. Graph theory is not better or worse
>> than predicate logic or differential calculus, but the Relational
>> Model is dramatically superior to the graph based data models.
> Don't you remotely see that you are "playing with words" yourself.
> You are giving no arguments what so ever, but "opininons" and adjectives
> as "horrendous complex and inflexibility", "severe inherent", "from 1st
> century" (well, that's younger than logic btw), "dramatically superior"...
> Repeating dislikes with (new) adjectives does not prove any point (except
> perhaps that there is no proof).
> You may very well have the correct conclusions (in fact I think you have
> So, what _is_ the "inflexibility" in XML?
> What _are_ the inherent AND severe problems in graph models (we are not
> talking implentation, remember).
> By _what measure(s)_ are Relations Model dramatically superior to graph
> based data models (again, not implementation).
Yes, these are the kinds of questions for which I haven't found logically derived, or even emperically gathered and statistically valid, answers.
I don't have this for other models either, but I don't claim to (yet ;-) Relational theorists, writers, or marketers seemed to have snowed even very intelligent people into thinking there is something mathematically, logically, or otherwise superior to any other models, past or even future (at least some have suggested that). In order to move forward, it would be good to relieve ourselves of thinking that relational theory has been anointed by the heavens. It is just one mathematical metaphor (aka model) for data. <end of sermon, back to questions>
Thanks. --dawn Received on Mon Dec 13 2004 - 17:22:05 CET