Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

"erk" <eric.kaun_at_gmail.com> writes:
> It's not an assertion, it's true by definition (modulo the original
> use of relation in mathematics). You can easily say "SQL DBMS" and
> be both correct and non-irritating. Given that this is a theory
> group, I think definitions are important. Not that they're not
> important outside theory...

my impression of the early systemr/sql work at sjr was that it was very much modeled after bank accounts (and Codd was also at sjr) .... two dimensional table structure with bank account number as the primary index and all the related information for each account very uniform. this was in the time-frame that one of the major people from IMS had joined a large financial institution ... and was putting together a larger IMS development group ... than the IMS development group in STL. there was a lot of focus on creating solutions to basic financial industry operations & business processes.

the row&column model was quite useful abstraction simplification that also shows up in the uptake of spreadsheet technology ... and fits well with the prevalent paper-based orientation of the period.

misc. past system/r postings
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#systemr

system/r site
http://www.mcjones.org/System_R/

SQL reunion
http://www.mcjones.org/System_R/SQL_Reunion_95/index.html

-- 
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/