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

Alexandr Savinov wrote:
> Having "One True Data Dictionary" means binding the whole system to
one
> layer - it is absolutism, i.e., precisely what should be avoided.

Since when did this become comp.databases.politics.totalitatianism? I have only a vague idea what you mean by "absolutism" in the context of computer systems, but it seems like a desirable property, given that we have to define and then reason about them.

> We need a layered system of dictionaries (if we are talking about
> dictionaries) where one layer defines a dictionary which is used in
> another layer and so on.

Why do we need this?

> Any one dictionary is not absolute and is based
> on some more fundamental layers (just like its functionality, data
> structure, relationships and all other things).

So the lower layer is absolute? You seem to confuse "absolute" with "atomic," though I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

> The main difficulty is to get rid of the
> temptation to think using the standard coordinate system (relational
> model, object-oriented programming etc., i.e., what we were taught in

> school and what we are frequently forced to use to be qualified as
> "successful" professionals).

And replace it with... ? I'm all for new (or old) ways of thinking, if they're effective. What's on the table?

• erk