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

mountain man wrote:
> "erk" <eric.kaun_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113399979.268750.316550_at_l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > I would infer that the languages used for the program objects would
> > benefit from relations as first-class entities.
>
> Such as that found within SQL?

SQL does a rather poor job of it, so I wouldn't say SQL is a good "model."

> SQL DBMS's can be made automatically optimally "relational"
> by that application of common sense management. Codd's 12
> Rules can be met on the ground of implementation, although
> this may be a foreign concept to many theorists.

Sure, but that says nothing about the model, nor does it say anything about the value of "non-relational SQL management standards," whatever that means, either in theory or practice.

> However I do mean to redefine the scope of the "model of data"
> such that it has the ability to encompass not just the data, but
> also the processes associated with that data, which are already
> being stored by modern database management systems as
> stored procedures.

If associating procedures with data is your only concern, that's been covered ad nauseum by ADTs, various type theories, OO, etc. What do they miss that you propose to add?

• erk